Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 October.

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Administration

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that the process of administration of Northern Ireland involves the input of opinions from all political parties which support the present constitutional arrangements.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Government are fully committed to involving all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland in the good government of Northern Ireland. Their views are sought on all legislative proposals and at all times my ministerial colleagues and I are available to discuss issues of concern with representatives from the political parties.

Mr. Shaw: Should not the greatest emphasis be placed on involving in the administrative process people who support the current constitution? Should we not recognise that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and of the whole United Kingdom want to see the parties and people who support the present constitutional arrangements much involved in furthering the future of the constitution of Northern Ireland and to exclude from consultations and talks people who have no understanding of or time for the present constitution?

Mr. Ancram: I agree. We have made it clear all along that those who wish to partake in the dialogue by which we hope to reach a political settlement must abide by the constitutional and democratic methods suitable to this country. People who have not renounced violence on a permanent and credible basis will not be part of that dialogue.

Mr. Molyneaux: Given that the indiscretions of Mr. Reynolds have seriously damaged the rather cumbersome talks process initiated back in 1991, will the Minister

seriously consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and perhaps settle for something more modest which would enable the people of Northern Ireland to work and live together, as the greater number of them clearly want to do?

Mr. Ancram: I understand the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to see democratic institutions working again within the Province, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman's keenness to see that. However, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that my view and that of the Government is that that cannot be achieved in isolation from decisions on the other relationships involved—between the north and the south and between the two Governments. Those issues are interlocked and can be solved only on an interlocking basis.

Dr. Hendron: Does the Minister accept that while most people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the island of Ireland believe that there must be change—that is what the talks in which the two Governments are involved are all about—only political parties that support the democratic process and have a mandate from the people can be involved in talks?

Mr. Ancram: I certainly confirm that. That has been the situation since the current talks started in March 1991. We have made it clear that the main constitutional parties will be involved in those talks if they wish, and I still regret that one main constitutional party is not prepared to take part in those talks at the moment. I repeat, however, that the British Government will not see involved in those talks parties that have not renounced violence permanently and credibly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the question of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the answer that he received, has the Minister read the statement made two days ago in the United States of America by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who said that he is seeking in the present talks the reconstruction of the police? Will the Minister comment on the Irish Government's proposal to remove the word "Royal" from the Royal Courts of Justice and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to achieve some sort of a settlement?

Mr. Ancram: I am not going to become involved in the detail of the current discussions between the two Governments, but it is clear that if they are to be successful they must be based on a broad spread agreement among the people of Northern Ireland. Anything that is not likely to secure that broad spread agreement would be unacceptable.

Sir James Kilfedder: May I ask the Minister why I have been excluded from the talks since the beginning of the process, despite my protests?

Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions, and I appreciate his wish to be involved. At the time when the talks process began, however, it was decided that only the main constitutional parties should participate; otherwise there would have been a proliferation of parties seeking to do so. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—as I have told him before—that I am always delighted to hear his views on where we should be going and that I will meet him whenever he wishes.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the proposed summit will go ahead next week and that the agenda will include the setting up of structures on an all-Ireland basis? We should bear in mind the fact that even the Government of Ireland Act 1920 referred to a Council of Ireland and a Parliament for the whole of Ireland and also yesterday's announcement that the European Union would make additional money available for cross-border co-operation.

Mr. Ancram: As I have said, I will not talk about the detail of the current conversations between the two Governments. I will say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will see the Taoiseach at the Brussels Council tomorrow, where they hope to have a serious working meeting to review progress made by officials on the framework document, as well as security issues and the prospects of an end to violence. They will also consider the prospects and timing of the next bilateral summit.

Political Talks

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments regarding the joint declaration.

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest peace negotiations in the Province.

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the Downing street declaration; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The joint declaration stands as a statement by the British and Irish Governments of fundamental principles by which they will be guided. We have made it abundantly clear that violence for political ends is incompatible with these principles and that it will continue to exclude those responsible for it from the democratic process.

Dr. Spink: In view of recent speculation that Sinn Fein may soon respond to the joint declaration, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Government policy remains that there will be no commencement of even exploratory talks until there is a permanent and total cessation of violence? Would he care to comment on the Taoiseach's recent comments on the matter?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear time and again that there must be a permanent cessation of violence, and an unequivocal declaration and commitment to that cessation.
On 12 July Mr. Reynolds, the Taoiseach, said in the United States:
Other parties will not sit around the table with those who reinforce their argument by the use of violence or the threat of it. That is why there must first be a lasting and definitive commitment to a purely democratic political strategy.
That is the joint position of both Governments.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the striking features of the process since the joint declaration is the fact that the two Governments have continued to stand shoulder to shoulder in their search

for peace? May we again put on record our thanks to the Irish Government for the constructive role that they are playing?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: They have indeed stood shoulder to shoulder. That is what makes the use of violence for political purposes so abundantly self-defeating. Those who use it in that way know perfectly well that both Governments are determined that coercion shall not be rewarded. That is the view of the British Government and also of the Irish Government. We make common cause very effectively to ensure that those who resort to violence are thwarted and defeated.

Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us share his disgust—and probably even despair—at the recent terrifying explosives find in Heysham, and the recent IRA attacks? May I urge him, however, not to be diverted by those events or by other pressures from the central goal of getting Sinn Fein to the negotiating table in one way or another, as that is one of the keys to peace?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is obviously desirable thatevery political party with a democratic mandate which is committed to the democratic process should participate, in one way or another, in the discussions, but people should not suppose that by continuing to resort to violence, or by justifying it, they can somehow hold up that process because they cannot—they will be left outside. So it is for them to choose—the process is unstoppable.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will agree that in the joint declaration his Government define their role as the creation of agreement among all the people of Ireland. I am sure that he would also agree that that implies creating a unity of purpose and a political agreement with which all the people of Ireland can identify. How and when will that be presented to us by the two Governments so that the emphasis can shift to the legitimate political process and away from those who support and plan acts of violence?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman refers to the discussions going on between the two Governments, the objective of which is to reach a shared understanding of the sort of package that would lead and help the democratically elected and constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, with the two Governments as appropriate, to reach that overall settlement, which has been their goal since 1991. That is what we are about. Of course it is not easy. The reason why we are trying to achieve that settlement is that from time to time party leaders have said, "We cannot say how far we are prepared to go and what our bottom line would be on, let us say, strand 1 or strand 2 until we know the position of the Governments." It is therefore desirable that the Governments should demonstrate that shared understanding, if we can. It is not easy, but a lot of progress has been made. I cannot say when success will be achieved, but there are sensible grounds for believing that it will be.

Mr. Robathan: I am sure that hon. Members are pleased to hear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Government, but what tangible progress has been made by the Irish Government or what concessions have made by that Government to the concerns of the people of the North of Ireland, who belong to the Unionist majority, since either the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Downing street declaration?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: As I think that my hon. Friend knows—I have often told him so—the co-operation between, for example, the two police forces has progressively improved over the years and in very recent times. If he consults Hugh Annesley or the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana, as I hope that he will, he will become aware of the close character of co-operation and trust which exists and of the practical ways in which they are helping each other. I do not share the view implicit in my hon. Friend's question: I know that he takes an linterest in this matter and how sincere he is, but I do not share his implicit distrust of the Irish Government or the view that they are somehow not fully committed to the defeat of terrorism—I am satisfied that they are.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Since one of the main objectives of the declaration, now more than eight months old, was to bring about a renunciation of violence by the IRA and to involve it in the political process, leading towards some form of devolution in Northern Ireland in which the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams, and the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), would both work together and play a major role, how long will it be before the declaration achieves that objective? [Interruption.]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will no doubt speak for himself—and I expect that we shall hear him—either from an upright or from a sedentary position. Both Governments made it clear at the time that the purpose of the declaration was to set out fundamental principles of democracy, of the rejection of violence and of realism. That was achieved, and that is why I said that the declaration stands. Of course, if those people who have believed—and still believe—that they can make progress towards their political objectives by violence are persuaded that they have been mistaken, that is well and good and we shall all rejoice. But if, contrary to all the evidence, they continue to think that they can make progress by violence in our democracy, that is too bad: we shall proceed with the process in which all the principal political parties have been engaged and we shall carry it through—we do not intend to give up.

Mr. McNamara: The official Opposition entirely support what the Secretary of State has just said. On another matter, however, does he accept that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 should be amended to reflect the principle of consent?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not accept that it should be amended to reflect the principle of consent because it seems to me that the principle of consent has been well and truly established in a number of statutory instruments since the Government of Ireland Act. Everyone knows that it is the policy of the Irish and British Governments that no change in the status of Northern Ireland can or should take place, save by the consent of those who live in Northern Ireland. Both Governments have said from the very beginning—and my predecessor said from the very beginning—that absolutely nothing is precluded from being put on the table in the constitutional talks. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman—there is no need for the Act to be amended, but if someone wants to have it amended we shall examine any proposal and consider it on its merits.

Cross-border Security

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of cross-border security co-operation.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): There is already an excellent level of co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Both Governments, however, are constantly striving to find ways of improving the effectiveness of security measures.

Mr. Spring: In view of the current level of violence and the appalling acts of terrorism perpetrated in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that co-operation is taking place at the highest level, as is necessary to deal with the tragic situation on both sides of the border?

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is correct. Violence occurs on both sides of the border and neither country can afford to be complacent. However, I can tell the House that co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana is of the very highest level. The Gardai's record speaks for itself: last year, they recovered nearly 400 firearms, more than 25,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 3,800 lbs of explosives, and inquiries and arrests have continued this year.

Mr. Maginnis: With respect, the Minister is singing the same tune that we heard in 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990, and that we shall probably also hear in 1995. It is boring, it has too many flats and it certainly does not reflect the fact that, as the Minister must admit, lorry load after lorry load of explosives are being trundled across the frontier from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and that, very possibly, the Heysham bomb came from that direction, too. In the same vein, will he—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question rather than a long statement from the hon. Gentleman as a number of hon. Members are hoping to ask questions.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister face the reality that security is ineffective at the level where it counts, irrespective of what happens at the highest level between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana?

Sir John Wheeler: I visited the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana only last week and was able to see the level and extent of the training and arrangements for the management of the Garda Siochana. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that police force is as determined as the Royal Ulster Constabulary or any other police force in the United Kingdom to confront terrorism wherever it can, and the record of success is improving all the time.

Mr. William O'Brien: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will the Minister give assurances that resources will be provided to ensure that there is cross-border co-operation, and will he prevail upon the Government of the Irish Republic to do the same? If we are to develop tourism and business trade between the north and the south, which is the way to peace initiatives, we need to be sure that such traffic will be able to travel between the north and the south without interference and that there will be security at the border.

Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both police forces and both Governments are well aware of the importance of commerce and of facilitating the movement of traffic between the two countries. That has to be achieved within the bounds and constraints of defeating and controlling terrorism, and every effort is made to work towards those objectives.

Lady Olga Maitland: I totally accept the Minister's assurance that there is good co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda, but does he agree that it would be helpful if certain members of the Irish Government could cast aside some of their political sensitivities so that we could enhance security?

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland. Through the intergovernmental conference procedure, we have the opportunity to review in detail the security arrangements between the two countries and the successes of our police forces, and to examine how they could be further advanced. We shall continue to do that.

Political Talks

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks that he has had with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government in relation to the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met Ministers of the Irish Republic to discuss the latest political developments in Northern Ireland.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the main Northern Ireland parties. I last met the Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, at the intergovernmental conference on 17 June, when we reviewed progress on the preparation of a joint framework document which might facilitate the negotiation of a comprehensive political settlement involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments as appropriate.

Mr. Corbett: Can the Secretary of State give us the date of the next Anglo-Irish summit, and does he propose to put on the table proposals for cross-border executive bodies in exchange for amendments to articles 1 and 2 of the Irish constitution?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have had that one already. It is not for me to say when the next summit meeting will take place. The two Prime Ministers will meet in Brussels tomorrow and will have a workmanlike discussion, which will no doubt cover the prospects for and timing of the next summit. The agenda, too, will depend upon such matters.

Mr. Winnick: Do the two Governments recognise that the rejection of the joint declaration by Sinn Fein and the IRA, totally without justification, has led to the escalation of violence both from the Provisional IRA and from the loyalist murder gangs? Although I totally disagree with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) stands for, will the Secretary of State join me in utterly condemning the assassination attempt? We are all most grateful that the hon. Gentleman survived it, but if his children had been slaughtered we

would no doubt have heard the same weasel excuses from those responsible as we heard from those responsible for the child murders in Warrington.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the disgraceful and disgusting attack on the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I endorse what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said; indeed, I said as much myself when I visited the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster at his home the morning after the attack. Only a matter of seconds saved his 14-year-old daughter from being murdered, and no doubt the intention was that the hon. Gentleman would be murdered, too. The people involved presume to speak about self-determination and their support for the self-determination of the Irish people. How can self-determination be secured, save by democracy? The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is a democratically elected representative, but those people have been elected by nobody—in their mouths, talk of peace and the peace process is no more than hypocritical blasphemy.

Mr. Trimble: Does not the Secretary of State realise that recently we have come to the painful conclusion that, despite our willingness, the Government are not presently committed to any serious discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties and prefer instead to allow themselves to be strung along by the Irish Government and the Provisional IRA? Does not he also realise that the reported concession offered by the Irish Government over the amendment to article 3 of the constitution is utterly worthless and totally hypocritical? Is not it time to bring that charade to an end and for the Government to bring forward sensible proposals for the good government of Northern Ireland, along the lines which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience. I do not share the feelings that lead him to describe what is going on as a charade; nor do I recognise that the Government are being strung along by the Irish Government. That said, I recognise impatience. But it is the duty of us all—I am not a particularly patient man by temperament—to demonstrate as much patience as we can as long as there seems to be a realistic prospect of bringing the discussions to a successful conclusion. If it becomes clear that that cannot succeed, I shall remember and the Prime Minister shall remember that the British Government have responsibility for Northern Ireland. Then it will be for us to consider what we bring forward ourselves, unilaterally, by way of facilitating the achievement by the political parties of the kind of overall settlement which has been everybody's objective for so long.

Mr. Alton: In combating terrorism which prevents political progress from being made in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress is being made in combating the systematic organised crime which bedevils Northern Ireland and the flow of arms and weapons into the island of Ireland from state-sponsored terrorism by a country such as Iran?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Iranians have been rumbled in exactly that context. Every step is being taken to ensure that no arms reach any paramilitary organisations from any source outside the


island of Ireland. Furthermore, while we are making progress, there is no doubt that racketeering exists on a completely unacceptable scale. We have amended the law and the new law is being applied. It will be very much easier to concentrate on that if violence for political purposes has been brought to an end. But it is a real problem of which we are well aware.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statements that he and the Minister have made regarding the possibilities of a summit next week may send conflicting signals to different parts of different peoples in the island as to the success and the determination of the two Prime Ministers and the two Governments? Will he therefore consider carefully whether it would be better in the long run if, after the officials have had their discussions this week, the two Prime Ministers at least meet formally at a summit to stock take and to discuss how far they have got and where they may be able to make progress?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: As a mere Sherpa, who does not aspire to lead the summit, it is really not up to me to say more than I have said already. The two Prime Ministers will meet tomorrow and they will be discussing the prospects for a summit meeting and the timing for it.

Forestry

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make an announcement on changes in incentives for private forestry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making an announcement about the outcome of the forestry review in Great Britain shortly. An equivalent announcement on incentives for private forestry in Northern Ireland will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Ross: While I welcome that reply about the statement on incentives, does the Minister appreciate that we have had tremendous success in private planting in Northern Ireland over the past few years, but we are right up against the deadline at which people must make plans to buy the small trees to promote the package? They cannot promote the package if one is not available. Can we have the statement on incentives as soon as is humanly possible?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that improvements have been made in planting in Northern Ireland over the past few years and it is our intention to build on that success with the incentive scheme review when it is announced. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment that there is pressure on those who want to know the planting incentives for the next year and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also aware of that pressure.

Technology Firms

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of inward investment in technology firms in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Between April 1991

and the end of March 1994, the Industrial Development Board has secured inward investment in technology firms amounting to some £227 million. The IDB's recent successes in this area are a very encouraging development.

Mr. Coombs: It is clear from my hon. Friend's answer that information technology can play an important part in building up the economy of Ulster, despite the troubles which have been discussed during this Question Time. How many jobs were created in the technological sector, including information technology, last year and what was the total value of that investment?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of IT. I am glad to be able to tell him that last year the IDB had one of its most successful years ever. We secured more than 2,300 new jobs and investment of £259 million.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In view of the support that was given through the "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition that took place in the House—one of the persons who gave that support was the Secretary of State—is not there a case to be made for holding a "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition in the United States of America or other parts of the world, specially adapted of course? Would not that be a good way to bring inward investment to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister give his support to that idea?

Mr. Smith: That is an extremely good idea. I should certainly like to consider it. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the IDB already organises trade fairs overseas. I recently went to a successful trade fair in Washington called "The Look is Ireland" organised jointly with the Irish trade board.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Eddie O'Hara. I am sorry—Mr. Eddie McGrady.

Mr. McGrady: Thank you for the new baptism, Madam Speaker. It is usually O'Grady rather than O'Hara. I was interested in the Minister's response to the question. He lauded the IDB for its efforts in the past year. Will he and the Department take cognisance of the fact that many of the minority areas suffered 50 years of Unionist misdirection of industry and that that has not been corrected by 20 years of direct rule? For instance, in the past 10 years less than 1 per cent. of inward investment has come to South Down. Less than 1 per cent. of the total number of jobs created have come to South Down. Yet we are 10 miles from the central port of Belfast and in the southern part of the constituency we have a new and modern harbour. Can the Minister explain that discrepancy, which continues year after year?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are unfortunately not in a position to direct inward investors to any particular area in Northern Ireland. I should like as much the hon. Gentleman to see more inward investment in his constituency. I shall visit his constituency soon and discuss the issue with him.

Security

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers, reservists and military personnel have been killed or seriously injured in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Wheeler: Between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1994, six RUC officers, five military personnel and 79 civilians were killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. In addition, 131 RUC officers, 319 military personnel and 489 civilians were injured.
No effort will be spared in bringing those responsible for terrorist crimes to justice. Already this year, 246 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences, including 54 with murder or attempted murder.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for what I would describe as those horrific statistics. Does he accept that the peace process is sadly contributing to those horrific statistics? Does he further accept the fact that we are negotiating with a country that claims part of the United Kingdom as its territory in its constitution and yet we expect our security forces to protect that part of the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sooner the Republic of Ireland renounces its claim to Ulster as part of its territory, the sooner these dreadful slaughters will cease?

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend has already dealt with an aspect of my hon. Friend's question. The fact is that the Republic of Ireland and its police service work as closely as they can with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the United Kingdom's security forces to prevent crimes and outrages. They will continue to do so. As to my hon. Friend's point about the peace process, the only peace process that matters is the giving up of violence and killing, and the operation of democracy.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: While we express proper concern over the security situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should not allow this Question Time to pass without passing to the security forces our great congratulations on the find of explosives on the Warrenpoint to Heysham ferry, which undoubtedly saved one Member of Parliament—or maybe more than one Member—from seeing an outrage committed within their constituency? Will my right hon. Friend convey to the security forces the grateful thanks of the House for their activities in that regard?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The security forces are achieving remarkable results. They are professional. They are achieving significant results in the sense that something like four out of five potential terrorist attacks and killings are stopped or prevented before they occur. That shows the degree of professionalism, and I will gladly convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the security forces.

Mr. Beggs: Condemnation of violence and expressions of sympathy to bereaved families and those who are maimed because of IRA atrocities are much too small a response from those who are responsible for the security of service personnel and civilians in Northern Ireland. How many more attacks on helicopters, sniper attacks, mortar bomb attacks and, indeed, blockbuster bomb explosions must occur before the Government face up to the reality that, with or without the support of the Irish Republic, we must have selective internment of the "Godfathers"? The Government should not insult our intelligence any more by

repeating the comment made time and again that security co-operation was never better than it is today, because it must have started from a very low position.

Sir John Wheeler: As to the hon. Gentleman's substantial point about the question of internment, it remains available to the Government and is constantly kept under review. But we must measure that possibility against the advice that my right hon. and learned Friend and I receive from the Chief Constable as to the successes of the RUC and the security forces—their achievements, the collection of intelligence and what they believe is the right policy to pursue to prevent these outrages from occurring.

Foreign Heads of State

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations his Department has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding visits to Northern Ireland by foreign heads of state.

Sir John Wheeler: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is consulted at official level about all visits by foreign heads of state to Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share my concern and the concern of many in Northern Ireland that the President of the Republic of Ireland is exploiting British Government tolerance in so-called private visits which are really public engagements and reinforcing the irredentist claim of articles 2 and 3, even to the point of unveiling plaques on public buildings funded by public money?

Sir John Wheeler: The President of the Republic of Ireland visits Northern Ireland in her capacity as a private visitor. They are working visits. She seeks to initiate those visits herself or visits at the invitation of local bodies or groups, and she is received with courtesy on behalf of the Government.

Bill of Rights

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to publish a White Paper on the implementation of a Bill of Rights; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no plans at present to do so.

Dr. Godman: In light of the recommendations contained in the Opsahl report concerning the need to examine measures that will help to bring about parity of esteem between the two traditions, have the Government any plans to examine such steps, either within a Bill of Rights or in some other form?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have already introduced tangible measures to ensure that parity is obtained in employment matters. We have the toughest non-discrimination legislation in the whole of Europe. I have said that I would be perfectly willing to consider whatever may be proposed, so far as a Bill of Rights is concerned. The fundamental human right that has to be guaranteed above all others is the right to life, and that is what we are concentrating on. A great many people—I do not include


the hon. Gentleman—who are keen on advancing a Bill of Rights are reluctant to condemn the violence that is being deployed for political purposes in this democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mackinlay: What instructions has the Prime Minister issued this week in connection with combating the appalling level of air pollution throughout the Thames valley and in every other urban area of the United Kingdom? Can we be assured that it is Government policy that the polluters will pay and be prosecuted, rather than merely be given a ticking off and a prohibition notice? Now is the time for action to combat air pollution.

The Prime Minister: Of course, it was a Conservative Government who established the first ever environment Department as long ago as 1970, and we take environmental matters very seriously. On air pollution, we have already agreed tight emission standards for new cars and lorries and we intend that they be rigidly enforced. We have taken the lead over the rest of Europe by introducing integrated pollution policies and we are determined to ensure that those are kept. We made it clear earlier this year in discussion documents that making the air cleaner is an important part of our policy and, where necessary, we will take action.

Mr. Marlow: Is a single European currency a commercial convenience, or does it mean single European interest rates, a single European economy, harmonised and high levels of European taxation and, effectively, a single European state? And, if it is the latter, could my right hon. Friend tell the House that he is most unlikely ever to put it before the British people? It would give a great deal of simple pleasure to a lot of simple people if he could say so.

The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to give some simple pleasure to my hon. Friend. As I have told the House on many occasions, a single currency would not be a practicable proposal, unless one had a proper and equally performing series of economies right across the area that would be governed by that currency. Without that, there would be the very practical difficulty that one would get large-scale structural unemployment and a massive demand for funds transferred from one part of the European Union to another. It is for that very practical reason that I do not believe that we are within many years of being able to consider a single currency.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Prime Minister yet able to tell us whether, in the context of the presidency of the European Commission, there are any candidates who do not support the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Lady that, since we are not partners to the protocol, it does not matter from our point of view whether they are in favour or not.

Mrs. Beckett: But the meeting is tomorrow. Is the Prime Minister telling us that, having used the veto—so he said—to permit extensive consultations, he does not know whether any of the candidates are against the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: I sometimes think that the right hon. Lady prepares her second and third questions before listening to the first answer. The second question bore no relationship to the answer which I just gave her, which I shall repeat. Since we are not partners to the protocol that governs that aspect of European policy, it does not matter to this country whether the new president does or does not support that.

Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister, as he will be well aware, has twice run away from answering the question. Is he reluctant to answer it because he knows that, in a triumph of personal diplomacy, he vetoed the appointment of one Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter, and will now support the candidacy of a Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter?

The Prime Minister: Oh dear, oh dear. I fear that the right hon. Lady has shown the House too clearly that she does not have a scintilla of understanding of the European policies of each of the candidates whose name has been put forward for the presidency of the European Commission. There is a substantial difference between those policies that I vetoed last week and those that are followed by any of the candidates who remain in the ring at the moment.
The decision will be made on Friday and the right hon. Lady might then understand the distinction between the policies of a European Commission president whom I would not accept and those of a European Commission president whom I can accept.

Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impending statement from the Secretary of State for Defence will be keenly awaited by many people who work in the defence contracting industry in Leeds and in many other parts of the country? Can he confirm that "Front Line First" means enhancing the capabilities of our front-line troops by giving them the best available equipment to do the many jobs with which they are faced?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a detailed statement about the matter in a few minutes and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not anticipate that statement in detail. "Front Line First" was established to ensure precisely that we direct the resources available to the front line to maximise the fighting capacity and the cutting edge of the British armed forces.

Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hain: rose—

Mr. Richards: Liar. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Just a moment. Let me establish who made the remark.

Hon. Members: Stand up.

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that it was Mr. Rod Richards. Is that the case?

Mr. Richards: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I require the hon. Gentleman to stand up and immediately apologise.

Mr. Richards: I withdraw my remark, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must apologise to me as the Speaker of the House for those words.

Mr. Richards: Madam Speaker, I apologise to you.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Hain.

Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. The matter is over and done with.

Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry into the way a member of his Cabinet, Lord Wakeham, and other leading Conservatives were in 1988 taken off selected Lloyd's syndicates which later suffered three years of catastrophic losses? Were they the beneficiaries of insider information while millions of pounds of losses were dumped on ordinary Lloyd's investors?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any information whatever to suggest impropriety, he should bring that information forward. Given the inferences that clearly underlie his question, under the privilege of Parliament most people would not regard it as the right way to raise that matter.

Mr. Mans: Has any member of my right hon. Friend's Cabinet in the past advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons while at the same time suggesting that they should be retained, or suggested that we should withdraw completely from the European Community while advocating a federal Europe with Britain inside it? Have not all three contenders for the Labour leadership done all of those?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that question is clearly, no. Had they done so, they would certainly not be members of my Cabinet.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what official engagements he has already fixed in the London borough of Southwark for the rest of the current year.

The Prime Minister: I have no engagement planned at this stage.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, will the Prime Minister accept a short engagement to cross the river and explain to the people of Southwark, a borough with one of the highest levels of deprivation and unemployment in Britain, whether it is the Government's policy to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest in Britain and increase public services before thinking of cutting taxes? If so, when?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the available public assistance given to people in hardship,

both to those in work on very low incomes and those out of work, he will see that there has been a significant improvement in recent years in the resources available to deal with those problems. He will know of the significant resources put particularly into inner-city areas of deprivation like Southwark over a large number of years. What does need to be done, and it requires the assistance of local authorities and others if we are to get to the root of the problem, is to ensure that those boroughs are also prepared to co-operate with bringing private capital into the area so that a joint approach of public and private capital can maximise the improvement for people who live in poor circumstances.

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Since the Tory Government came to power in 1979, this country has lost a considerable proportion of its manufacturing base, yet, alone among European Union Governments, this Government have benefited to the tune of £124 billion worth of North sea oil revenue. We can guess what the Germans and French would have done with that. What did the Tory Government do with it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, be prepared to acknowledge in private that employment in manufacturing industry has been on a downward trend since the 1960s, whomsoever have been in Government. It has now stabilised. The manufacturing base at the moment is broadening, not narrowing. We now have the best economic circumstances, not just for exports but for growth and manufacturing, that we have had for the past 20 or 25 years. That is readily understood by everyone beyond the confines of the Labour party.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: It is common ground in the House that the civil service is full of people of ability, honesty and integrity. Yet we would all agree—indeed, civil servants would agree—that the high cost of government and grandiose waste in building projects, for instance, are not what we are looking for. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper published yesterday, "Continuity and Change", shows that we also need improvement and cost reductions?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We can take pride in the performance of the British civil service over many years. That is evident not only in this country but by the fact that a number of other countries have copied the British civil service system. It has high standards of integrity, and we are determined to maintain that integrity and impartiality while improving the service delivered through the civil service to the people of this country, who pay for it, and to us.

Mrs. Mahon: The Prime Minister will be aware that at the moment, no national health service patients can be placed in private health care systems or homes against their wishes if they or their relatives will incur a personal charge


for that move. Will the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that people will retain the right to free NHS care?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Lady that guarantee: the right to national health service care free at the point of delivery is an integral part of the Government's policy, and will remain so.

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which shows that during

the 1980s, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth out-performed that of Germany, whereas the period when we were most out-performed by Germany was between 1974 and 1979? Does not that illustrate that the time when this country was in danger of slipping into a second rate, low productivity, low wage, skivvy economy, with Mickey Mouse jobs, was not under the present Government, but rather in the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has unearthed some interesting facts, which Opposition Members would do well to study. He is entirely right. The key to lasting prosperity and lasting jobs is to get the underlying economic conditions right, and then to keep them right. That is what we have done, and is what we propose to continue to do.

"Front Line First"

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the study known as "Front Line First".
At the end of the cold war there were major changes in the international situation. In response, along with all NATO countries, we have reduced the size and adjusted the balance of our armed forces. We believe that our plans for the armed forces reflect the challenges that are likely to confront us. We are determined to maintain that position, and not to drop our guard. Accordingly, I have no proposals to announce that would reduce the fighting strength of our armed forces.
Defence is expensive. This year, we are spending £23 billion, a larger proportion of our gross domestic product than most NATO countries. That amount is being reduced, as was announced last autumn. There is a continuing need to ensure that the administration and support of our armed forces are subjected to the most rigorous analysis. Only by doing that can we ensure that the money available for defence is being spent properly, and in a way which contributes to our fighting capability.
That is why I set up "Front Line First"—not to consider fighting strength, but to consider headquarters, stores, infrastructure, manning and all other aspects of defence administration and support.
I have also been determined that we should benefit from the experience and ideas that are to be found in all parts of the armed forces and in the civil service. Accordingly, we invited service and civilian personnel to contribute their ideas, and they did so to a splendid and unprecedented degree. More than 3,000 proposals were received. All those proposals were considered, and many endorsed.
We recognised from the start that strong and efficient support is a necessity and not a luxury; unless the armed forces are recruited, trained, clothed, fed and supplied in a professional and successful manner, their operational capability will suffer. Accordingly, every recommendation for change was examined against one major criterion—would it directly or indirectly affect the operational capability of the armed forces?
We relied heavily on the professional advice of the chiefs of staff. If it was concluded that a proposal would damage the fighting capabilities of the armed forces, it was rejected.
The proposals that have now emerged are set out in detail in the report published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House. I do not have time in this statement to go through every proposal, but I should like to set out the most important of our decisions.
A number of themes have emerged from the work that has been done. First, the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic.
Secondly, there is scope for far more delegation of responsibility down the management chain. We can simplify working practices and increase personal responsibility and accountability. We should try to bring to our peace-time working practices the reliance on personal responsibility which the armed forces show so effectively in operations.
Thirdly, recent experience shows that military operations are increasingly conducted on a joint service basis. Our structure should reflect that.
We intend to reduce the Ministry of Defence in central London still further, from more than 5,000 to a central core of 3,750—a reduction of more than 25 per cent. on previous plans. They will be housed in the main building and in the old War Office, instead of four separate buildings as presently planned. We have decided to form a permanent joint headquarters at Northwood, to replace the current approach where headquarters staff are drawn together ad hoc in response to developing crises.
The Procurement Executive headquarters will have 500 fewer staff. We will go ahead with the planned relocation of the executive at a single site at Abbey Wood near Bristol, but it will now be collocated with another headquarters, which will allow significant capital savings.
We have looked in depth at our arrangements for holding and distributing stores for the armed forces, such as clothing, food and fuel. We have found that modern supply techniques mean that we can reduce unessential holdings, enabling us to rationalise storage facilities while improving our ability to get stocks to the front line.
That will allow the closure of 17 depots of varying sizes in the United Kingdom. They are identified in the report published today which I have placed in the Library, and details have been sent to those hon. Members in whose constituencies they lie. Altogether the changes in our logistic arrangements set out in the report will save the defence budget more than £200 million a year and will improve operational capability by providing a more efficient supply chain that is better able to deliver essential stores to the front line.
A number of the studies took a fundamental look at the arrangements for recruiting service men and women, and our procedures for managing and training personnel. The total cost of our recruiting activities amounts to £100 million each year and is unacceptably expensive, especially when recruiting needs are low. At present, it is costing between £5,000 and £15,000 for every recruit.
It has become clear that there is scope for closer co-operation with the Employment Services Agency. Subject to the successful completion of a pilot trial, we intend to use the facilities of the 1,300 job centres as the first point of contact for those wishing to join the armed forces. That means that we can replace the existing network of more than 200 careers information offices with a much smaller specialist regional organisation. We expect that proposal to save us £25 million a year.
Given the joint service nature of military operations, we believe that it is right to combine command and staff training at senior level and create a joint services staff college. Further work is in hand to examine whether that should be located at Camberley or Greenwich, and whether junior command and staff training should take place on the same site.
"Front Line First" identified a number of ways in which we could reduce the cost of flying training. We intend to establish a single defence helicopter flying training school for all three services at Middle Wallop near Andover or at Shawbury near Shrewsbury, increase the involvement of civilian instructors and contractors in much of our flying training activity and rationalise training. That will mean that RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton will no longer be necessary, and they will be closed.
Skilled medical support is essential for the armed forces, but at present service hospitals have substantial overcapacity and there is considerable scope for closer links with the national health service. We intend, therefore, to reduce the number of service hospitals in the United Kingdom from three to one, which will be situated at Haslar in Gosport, and to establish regional military district hospital units in NHS hospitals at Derriford and at two new sites, and to retain a presence at Catterick.
We have also looked at military music. This is part of the fabric of our armed forces and makes an irreplaceable contribution to morale and fighting spirit. We have therefore decided that the number of musicians and bands which I announced last year should remain. But there is a need to rationalise and reduce the costs of training.
The Royal Marines believe that training their musicians at Deal has become prohibitively expensive. The maintenance demands of the buildings, and other running costs, have resulted in costs per musician trained of up to £300,000. We therefore intend to transfer Royal Marine music training to a new location by April 1996.
I now turn to naval infrastructure. In 1993, it was decided that the Portland naval base would close by 1996, which would leave four bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Faslane, and Rosyth. Over the past three years, the number of ships in the Royal Navy has reduced further, and over-capacity has increased. We should not be spending large amounts of money on bases unless there is an operational requirement to do so. The money spent on excess base capacity could and should be spent on enhancing the Navy's fighting capability. The Royal Navy therefore has examined whether the number of bases could be safely reduced.
The conclusions were that Faslane on the Clyde should remain, in view of the operational need for a strategic submarine base. It is also necessary to retain at least two surface ship bases, given the substantial size of the Royal Navy. Of the three surface ship bases, Rosyth is the smallest, and is designated as the base for two of the three squadrons of minehunters and for the fishery protection squadron.
The Royal Navy has concluded that there is no strategic need to keep these ships permanently at Rosyth. We have therefore decided to move one squadron of minehunters to Faslane on the Clyde, which is closest to its normal area of operations. The second squadron and the fishery protection vessels will move to Portsmouth. That is sensible, as the fishery protection squadron operates almost entirely off the coast of England and Wales. The Scottish Office provides a fishery protection service around the Scottish coastline.
Rosyth will not, however, close. There is a continuing need for other Royal Navy-related activities at the Rosyth naval base site. These include necessary support for Rosyth dockyard, for storage, accommodation, Defence Research Agency activities, and the Defence Land Agent. Rosyth base will therefore become a royal naval support establishment continuing alongside the Rosyth royal dockyard. We will also retain the option of using Rosyth as a forward operating base should it become necessary to establish such a base on the east coast of Scotland.
All in all, these proposals will mean that over 900 civilian and service jobs will remain at the Rosyth base; 70 new jobs will be created on the Clyde. Around 700 civilian jobs will go; around 600 civilian jobs will remain.
We expect these proposals to save about £22 million a year, with no operational disadvantage. A consultation

document on our proposals for Rosyth is being issued today. The royal dockyard at Rosyth is not affected by these proposals and, as announced last year, can look forward to a substantial programme of surface ship refits.
We have also looked at arrangements for the shore basing of naval aircraft. We have concluded that the naval air stations at Culdrose and Yeovilton should continue and that the Lynx squadrons now accommodated at Portland could be moved to Yeovilton without any detriment to operational effectiveness. This will save about £12 million a year.
The air station at Portland will close by 1 April 1999. This will involve the loss of 400 jobs at Portland, though some of these and about two thirds of the service personnel based there will transfer to Yeovilton.
In the aftermath of the cold war, there is no longer a requirement for the maritime HQ at Pitreavie. We therefore intend to close it in 1996. We intend to transfer some staff, together with Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, to Faslane. The rescue co-ordination centre for the whole of the United Kingdom which we had planned to move to Pitreavie will now be set up at RAF Leuchars in Fife.
The Special Boat Service headquarters will be transferred from Poole to Portsmouth, where the facilities will meet our requirements. This will enable the closure of Royal Marines Poole. We are also rationalising Royal Marines barracks at Plymouth, and, subject to the outcome of current studies, we hope to transfer certain units to Chivenor, which is no longer required by the RAF.
We have also looked at our requirement for ranges. We have concluded that we can provide the armed forces with all the range capacity required and at the same time make savings of £7.5 million a year. This will involve the closure of the ranges at Kircudbright, Pendine, and Hurn. There will, however, still be a need for the ranges at Aberporth, and at Benbecula in the Hebrides.
Finally, so far as RAF Germany is concerned, we have also decided that we require only one air station. The Harriers and helicopters currently based at RAF Laarbruch will accordingly be redeployed to existing operational air stations in the UK. That will have operational benefit, because aircraft now based at Laarbruch often have to train over the United Kingdom.
Change on the scale envisaged in "Front Line First" is bound to have painful consequences. The overall impact of the package will mean net job reductions of about 18,700 over the next three years. Compared with previous plans, the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence will fall almost 7 per cent., or 7,100, and the total of uniformed personnel will fall 5 per cent—of which the Royal Navy will reduce by 1,900, the Army by 2,200 and the RAF by 7,500.
Those cuts will fall on all levels of service and civilian personnel. We anticipate that more than 20 senior military and civilian posts—that is, major-general level and above—will disappear. That will bring the total reduction in senior posts since 1990 to about one third.
A proportion of those reductions will require redundancies in the armed forces and the civil service. We will wish to deal sensitively and fairly with those who have served the nation well. The terms on offer will be the same as have applied to other recent redundancies.
It will be seen that manpower reductions are higher for the Royal Air Force. That reflects in particular the conclusions of work set in hand by the Air Force Board


some two years ago. The work addressed the scope for reducing costs by civilianising or contractoring out uniformed jobs. It also looked at savings to be derived from introducing new engineering work practices, and from reducing the number of expensive aircrew occupying ground posts.
The Air Force Board endorsed the outcome of that work, which is reflected in the measures that I have announced today. Like all the other proposals that I am announcing, those manpower reductions will not adversely affect our front-line fighting capability.
I should now like to outline our plans for the future of the Territorial Army. The Government remain committed to making greater use of the reserves. There has been a detailed study of the structure and manning of the TA. One option was to make a major reduction in the size of the TA to reflect the reduced home defence role. We decided, however, to reject that option.
In future, the role of the Territorial Army should be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation, and we intend to make greater use of it in peacetime. Our previous plans were for a TA with formed units of 59,000, plus a recruits pool of 4,500.
The latter is no longer necessary, but we intend to retain at its current level of 59,000 the formed units of the TA. We shall consult widely within the TA whether there should be some reroling of units or other changes within the 59,000 total, and we will announce the outcome later in the year.
We do not underestimate the challenge that the proposals I have announced represent for all involved. They will have a significant impact on the lives and prospects of many who serve in the armed forces, as well as on civilians in the Ministry of Defence. The changes are, however, essential if we are to focus our resources on sustaining and enhancing our operational capability and fighting strength. "Front Line First" has enabled us to do that. In particular, "Front Line First" has allowed us to make a number of highly significant enhancements to our front line capability, which I will outline to the House.
For the Royal Navy, I am able today to announce key equipment improvements across a range of capabilities that will enhance the Royal Navy's ability to sustain operations, as well as being of value to Britain's warship building industry. We will complete the modernisation of our amphibious capability. Last year, we ordered a helicopter carrier. Today, we are announcing that we shall shortly issue an invitation to tender for two new assault ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.
We will also extend the Royal Navy's capability for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare well into the next century, with the invitation to tender for the design and build of a new class of nuclear-powered submarine—the batch 2 Trafalgar class, which will replace the Swiftsure class.
We are able to carry forward our programme to build a force of 25 modern and highly capable mine counter-measures vessels. Accordingly, we are today placing an order with Vosper Thornycroft for a further batch of seven Sandown single-role minehunters. Four type 23 frigates are currently on order. We plan to issue invitations to tender

for a further batch during the coming year. The Government will assess the case thereafter on the basis of price and operational need.
For the Army, we can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks from Vickers Defence Systems. This will enable us to field an all-Challenger 2 fleet of tanks, improve the quality of the country's contribution to NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps and ensure that we have a continuing capability to make a significant contribution to the type of coalition operation we saw in the Gulf. This order will be very good news for Vickers and its work force of nearly 2,000 at both Leeds and Newcastle, and to the company's sub-contractors throughout the country.
An order is also being placed with Royal Ordnance at Glascoed, Gwent for 400,000 rounds of 51mm mortar ammunition.
Finally, we will use some of the additional 3,000 personnel made available last year for the Field Army to allow the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment, currently the 9/12 Lancers, to be given a role as a third and additional armoured reconnaissance regiment and to take its place in the front line.
For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft. This will provide improvements to the aircraft's avionics, navigation and armaments systems. It will maintain the operational effectiveness of the RAF's long-range attack capability well into the second decade of the next century, and help to preserve British Aerospace's manufacturing base at Warton in Lancashire in the run-up to production of Eurofighter 2000.
As for weapons programmes, the Gulf conflict demonstrated the value of precision stand-off weapons to allow targets to be attacked accurately, while reducing aircraft vulnerability. We are therefore placing an order for advanced laser-guided bombs with the associated thermal imaging and laser designation pods. The bulk of the work will be done in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, in the west country and on the south coast.
In addition, the Government believe there is a good case in principle for a new long-range air-to-ground missile, CASOM. They will continue to examine the case for CASOM carefully and, subject to the outcome of that examination, intend to open discussions with industry later in the year.
This is a substantial programme of investment in new equipment. The orders that I have announced today, and orders resulting from the invitations to tender, should together be worth about £5 billion, and are expected to sustain directly over 10,000 jobs. These decisions represent a major boost to British industry, as well as providing vital enhancements for all three services.
The success of "Front Line First" has also identified resources that can now be used to deal with other pressing priorities. I have decided that the most important priorities are to reverse the hollowing-out measures of recent years, and to increase levels of operational training.
To that end, I can announce that the success of "Front Line First" has enabled me to increase RAF operational force levels by moving 12 Harrier GR7 aircraft from the reserve fleet to the front line. I can also inform the House that the frigate and the submarine previously planned to go into mothballs within the next few years will remain in service as part of the operational fleet. I know that those proposals will be particularly welcome within the armed forces.
Equipment levels are themselves of little consequence unless they are backed up by intensive and highly developed training arrangements. Here, too, I am able to announce proposals for all three services. For the Army, we shall be improving our training areas in the United Kingdom and Germany. This will allow an increase in such training of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent., particularly at the battle group level. We shall be acquiring additional training aids to allow more complete simulation training.
For the RAF, it is important that pilots should have sufficient regular flying to preserve and enhance their skills. As part of our shift of resources to the front line, I have decided that the current level of aircrew flying training hours will be increased progressively over the next three years. When completed, the increase will bring the level of flying training for each aircrew member up to 20 hours a month, a total increase of 8,000 hours a year for the fast jet force.
For the Royal Navy, we shall be purchasing additional anti-submarine and gunnery targets to allow more realistic training for ships and naval aircraft deployed away from usual target facilities.
One of the most important achievements of "Front Line First" will be progress in tri-service operational capability. I have already referred to proposals for a joint headquarters, a joint staff college and a joint helicopter school.
I am pleased to be able to say that we intend to develop a joint rapid deployment force. We have already the fighting elements of rapidly deployable forces such as the Royal Marines, the Parachute Brigade, and 24 Air Mobile Brigade. We shall be looking at how best we can develop the capabilities of those forces to enable them to intervene even more effectively and speedily together.
We shall be providing additional communications infrastructure to improve their effectiveness, and many of the equipment enhancements announced earlier will contribute directly to improving this important area of capability. The concept of the joint rapid deployment force is one that can be built on, and the overall ability of our forces to operate at speed and effectively in the sort of situation described will be a high priority for the future.
In the changed strategic environment, there is a wider range of operations in which our forces may be deployed. In this context, for the Navy, we are therefore also examining the case for acquiring and committing to NATO conventionally-armed Tomahawk land attack missiles, and we will be seeking information from the United States of America Government and from industry.
I am conscious that the changes that the armed forces have undergone since the end of the cold war have been painful and demanding for them as well as for civilian staff. The nation already owes them a great debt, and successful implementation of the proposals that I have announced today can only increase that indebtedness. That process of change needs to be managed with sensitivity and care for our people, and that we will do.
The changes are necessary and justified. They will enable us to preserve the front line and proceed with a programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational effectiveness. Today, we have demonstrated the Government's determination to preserve and enhance our fighting strength and to ensure that our armed forces,

soldier for soldier, pilot for pilot and ship for ship, remain the best in the world. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Donald Anderson: May I first express the regrets of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his absence today? As has been explained to the Secretary of State for Defence, he is attending his daughter's graduation ceremony today.
I thank the Secretary of State for his very long statement, which lasted 56 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-six".] Twenty-six—it just felt like 56. The starting point must surely be that our armed forces are one of our country's great centres of excellence and have a worldwide reputation, and that nothing should be done that might destroy that excellence.
Obviously, we must have time fully to digest all the details that were set out today, but we welcome elements of the statement. We welcome, for example, the announcement in relation to the territorials, who at least are likely to have some stability after three years of very substantial cuts. We welcome the greater training planned for all three services. We welcome the new equipment orders and the development of a joint rapid deployment force, for which the case is well established.
We would have little difficulty in accepting the case for cuts if operational efficiency were not thereby impaired, but is it not clear that this latest round of cuts, when 1990's "Options for Change" is only two-thirds complete, has the Treasury as its sole driving force, as the silence of Conservative Back Benchers demonstrated today? If the cuts are so clearly justified, why did they not form part of the "Options" exercise? After 15 years of Conservative government, is it a credible reason that only now have efficiencies come to light?
In short, is it "Front Line First" or "Conservative party first?" Is it "Front Line First" or "bottom line first"? Is it not a clear admission that the Government have got it wrong in the past? Was it an accounting miracle or administrative incompetence that led to the discovery by the MOD that it was spending £500 million more on research and development than it originally thought?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, because of the timing of the announcement, it will be more than three months before the House has an opportunity to debate his statement, including all the major cuts which are part of it?
Does not the experience of recent military operations, especially those in the Gulf, where more than 70 per cent. of our Royal Air Force personnel were deemed to be support staff, show how spurious is the distinction between support services and the front line in a modern integrated service community?
On contractorisation, is not the Secretary of State's faith in privatisation at least troubled by the fact that 18 front-line RAF Tornado F3 fighters have recently been taken out of service and are awaiting repair at RAF St. Athan, due to the poor standard of repairs by civilian contractors? As a lawyer, does he not fear that in an emergency a civilian contractor might well say, "Sorry, it is not within the terms of our contract," or, "These extras have to be charged at premium rates"—as happened during the Gulf operation? Are contractor personnel likely to be asked to risk their lives? What obligation will be placed on contractors to train their own people, and not just poach from a diminished MOD pool?
As for redundancies and the regions affected, do not these cuts represent the sacking by the MOD of 18,700 workers? Will not they have a major effect on regions such as the south-west of England, which are already reeling from Government unemployment policies?
If my hon. Friends catch your eye, Madam Speaker, they will no doubt be making constituency points, but may I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and the trade unions on their magnificent campaign which has at least partially saved the Rosyth base? That campaign will continue, particularly to keep the minesweepers at Rosyth. Is it true that the Secretary of State had to re-write the Rosyth script as late as last Friday?
What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the compulsory redundancies? Why will not the Government undertake a total cost benefit study of such decisions, including the social security and job regeneration costs? Does the Secretary of State accept that it is hardly in our national interest to transfer payments from the MOD to the social security budget?
As for particular matters affecting the RAF, for example, which will bear the brunt of the cuts, is the decision to leave only one air station in Germany final, or can we expect a further announcement?
There are many particular problems affecting the Royal Navy. How can the shore-sea ratio in the Navy, which is so vital to morale, be maintained if home-based jobs, which our sailors would expect to be available, are lost to the Navy as a result of contractorisation?
As for the new orders announced today, have not those major defence equipment orders and sweeteners already been announced—some of them many times? Are they not just a smokescreen to hide the cuts?
Can the Secretary of State tell us of any major equipment order announced today that has not already been announced, in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, to the Defence Select Committee, or by way of a written answer—in some cases by all three methods? If the Secretary of State claims that, before today's announcement, those orders were in doubt, is he not in effect clearly conceding that we can put no faith in Government promises?
Why was there no mention in the statement of the location of the Army personnel office or the privatisation of the royal dockyards? Announcements on either would have major job implications throughout the country.
Finally, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to our shell-shocked service personnel—whose morale, as he and his colleagues well know, is fragile at the moment—that, after that further blow, there will be a period of stability? Or is that just another promise, like the promise by his predecessors when they said, "This is the end of the cuts"? Are there not further cuts on the horizon—cuts of at least an extra £2.6 billion from the financial year 1996–97?
There is still no defence review, no attempt to strike an overall balance between commitments and resources. There is no attempt, for example, to deal with key questions such as tanks versus helicopters or Tornados versus Harriers. The Government have no coherent strategy. Their defence policy is based on tactics,

short-termism and accountancy tricks. Do not our service personnel and workers in the defence industries deserve better? They will receive better—under Labour.

Mr. Rifkind: After that contribution from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I understand why The Guardian, of all newspapers, this morning said:
There is no field of politics in which Labour is less convincing than defence".
I shall try to respond to those of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that represented questions. He asked me about Rosyth, and implied that somehow the intervention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) had led to changes in the Government's policy over the past few days. That is a sign of the delusions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East experiences on a regular basis. The proposals that I announced today are exactly the same as those that I put to the relevant Cabinet Committee a week ago, and have not been changed one iota since then.
We do not consider it necessary to retain both the bases in Germany. Because of German restrictions on flying over Germany, RAF planes now often have to fly back to the United Kingdom for training before returning to Germany later in the day. That makes little operational sense, and that is why the change is being made.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Army Personnel Centre. That has not been mentioned today because there is no change in the current position; it will be established in Glasgow.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether there was to be some stability in defence, and sought to contrast the Government's position with that of the Labour party. But the programme of new equipment and operational improvements that we have announced today is a clear demonstration of the direction in which the Government intend to head.
Compare that with the policy of the Labour party; a policy of calling for a defence review on the front line, on force strengths, on capabilities, which would threaten the armed forces with total uncertainty, not only between now and the general election but, God forbid, thereafter, in the event of a change of Government. The Labour party offers nothing but instability and uncertainty to the fighting strength of the armed forces. Today, we have demonstrated our determination not only to maintain the fighting strength but to enhance it by the various new proposals which we have announced.

Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, while there is—obviously—regret about any losses of jobs, he has the clearest possible duty to see that the support and administration of our armed forces is brought in line with the new structure of our front line? In that connection, while some of his proposals follow on from the plans, as he knows, laid out under the new management strategy, may I congratulate him on some very imaginative new proposals, which have clearly benefited from the consultation process? The investment proposals and new equipment go a long way to meet our undertaking of smaller but better.
However, as he turns to our armed forces and all in the Ministry of Defence to see that that undertaking is successfully completed, will he recognise that it has been a period of major change? If today's announcement is to mark the end of that period, will he take the opportunity to say that, while the pursuit of efficiency must always continue in the Ministry of Defence, the service and duty


of our armed service men and defence personnel entitle them to a period of stability to implement those changes, and to ensure that they are successfully concluded?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend. Of course I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed. He has rightly identified that balance between improved efficiency, the search for which must always continue to ensure best value for money, and the maintenance and enhancement of the fighting strength of our armed forces. We have shown today that that is not rhetoric, but is matched by enhancements of fighting capability, of training opportunities, of the available equipment and of the way in which our armed forces can carry out their responsibilities. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Since the exercise is described as "Front Line First", will the Secretary of State tell us what assurances he has had from the Treasury about his ability to keep every penny of the savings which he proposes to make and to apply them to the front line?
Will he confirm that the continuation of Rosyth, even in a limited way, is an acceptance of its strategic value? What is the state of readiness for that installation? What exercises, if any, will be carried out to maintain that state of readiness?
In the light of his statement, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman persuaded that it would be right to look not only at costs, but at commitments as well? In the first instance, would it not now make sense to withdraw the Royal Air Force in its entirety from Germany, since the political and military purposes for which it was located there are no longer necessary?

Mr. Rifkind: On the first question, I should have thought that the basis on which I have been able to announce a substantial increase in training, the return to the front line of defence assets which were in reserve, and our policy on a joint rapid deployment force and Tomahawk land attack missiles would have indicated clearly to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the additional savings that we have identified have been available to enhance the front line in the way I have described.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about Rosyth's future role. I have said that Rosyth's future role will be as a naval support establishment, but because of the continuing access of berthing facilities, because of the Crombie ammunition depot nearby and the other available facilities, it will be open to the Royal Navy to use it as a forward operating base, if at some future moment that would seem to be desirable.
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be appropriate to withdraw all our Royal Air Force forces from Germany. The tangible, physical presence of the Royal Air Force and the Army in Germany is part of our commitment to NATO and to the integrated military structure of NATO. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should demonstrate that, as we are doing.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend and all those who took part in the 33 defence costs studies groups, who have come up with this solution to a very difficult problem.
However, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to remember that many of us on this side of the House feel that, notwithstanding the defence costs studies results, some areas of our defences are still in need of further enhancement than has been given today—noticeably the number of soldiers available, which leads to the emergency tour plot gap, which we feel should be filled.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can confirm not only that there will be a period of stability, as he has done, but that we have now reached the bottom of the cuts that we have seen for the past four years and that, as the economy improves, we shall be able further to enhance the capability of all three armed services.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute that he has paid to all who took part in the studies. I especially give my own thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who chaired the executive group and carried out much of the detailed work.
We shall keep the number of Army personnel under careful consideration. My hon. Friend will recall that we significantly enhanced the size of the field Army not only by reprieving the proposed amalgamation of the Cheshires and the Staffordshires, the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers, but by subsequently announcing a further 3,000 Army personnel for the front line for the field Army. That has enabled us to ease the situation significantly as a consequence.

Sir Harold Walker: Do the Government ever have regard to the employment consequences of their decisions? After the devastation of the coal mining industry and the railway manufacturing industry, my constituents have become increasingly dependent on the jobs provided by RAF Finningley, and now the Secretary of State is to wipe them away, too.
Will he have regard to the employment consequences and say something about the steps that the Government might take to offset the further increase in unemployment in the black spot of unemployment in my constituency? What phasing may take place in the closure of the bases?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we are conscious that defence expenditure has important employment implications. That is why I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming the 10,000 defence industry jobs that will be saved or created as a result of the announcements that we have made today.
I am conscious that in several locations there will be job losses. It is never a very pleasant task to announce closures in any part of the country. With his background, the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that it is necessary to use defence resources purely to fulfil the requirements of the armed forces: they cannot be used simply to provide employment for its own sake. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that, and to accept that that is indeed the reality.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that rationalisation and the pursuit of more cost-effective armed forces should happen not purely in reviews but constantly? What is the strategic justification for this review? The world is getting more dangerous, and there are more conflicts rather than fewer, as was the case in 1989 when the cold war ended.
What is to happen to the central flying school, which is the centre of excellence for flying standards in the Royal


Air Force, and is currently located at RAF Scampton, the base from which the Dambusters flew to attack the MÖhne, Sorpe and Eder dams? What is to become of navigation training, which is currently undertaken at RAF Finningley, and to rear crew training, which is also done there? What is to happen to the group structure of the RAF? Rumour has it that many of them are to be embedded in the Headquarters Strike Command.

Mr. Rifkind: The strategic background to the review is the essential requirement of concentrating defence resources on the fighting strength of the armed forces. Therefore, the redeployment that we have announced today is highly sensible for the very reasons that my hon. Friend has stated.
In answer to my hon. Friend's specific questions, we have no proposals to change the group structure of the Royal Air Force. I announced in my statement that both RAF Scampton and RAF Finningley would close. Flying training at the basic level is already in part provided by the private sector. There will be some increase in that provision.
I am conscious of the fact, however, that flying training, when it reaches the level required from military skills, can only be provided by those with military background and military capability; therefore, we will be careful to ensure that those who provide the training are fully qualified to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force. In that respect, I am very much guided by the advice of the Air Force Board.

Ms Rachel Squire: Can the Secretary of State explain what strategic, economic or military reasons he has for moving minehunting and fishery protection from Rosyth naval base, when his own advisers have told him that Rosyth can do it better and more cheaply? Does he agree that his statement on job losses involves 1,620 service personnel moving and 740 civilians losing their jobs, with the impact that that will have on the local economy?
Can he further explain why, only last July, he announced that the rescue co-ordination centre for the United Kingdom would be at Pitreavie, yet today he announced that the maritime headquarters will be moving from Pitreavie?
Finally, does he agree that his statement and his Government's defence policy amount to a betrayal of the trust, loyalty and commitment of the men and women who work at Rosyth, who have served their country so loyally for so many years?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Lady's strong feelings on this subject, which she naturally expresses, but she is misinformed. First, the advice that I received from the Royal Navy was unequivocally that there is no longer a strategic requirement for the ships to be based at Rosyth. If the hon. Lady considers the matter as objectively as possible, she will see the strength of that argument.
Of the two minehunter squadrons, one has the purpose of protecting the deterrent in the Clyde, and that is why it is more appropriate for it to be based at Faslane. The other minehunter squadron serves in the Gulf, the Atlantic or elsewhere, and there is no particular argument that points to one location or another as its base. As the hon. Lady must be well aware, the fishery protection service does not provide fishery protection for the waters around Scotland;

it provides protection for the waters around England, Wales and the south-west of England. She should bear that point in mind.
The hon. Lady was right to point out that, in addition to the job losses, service personnel will be moving from Rosyth. It is not yet certain how many will move because, clearly, that will depend on a number of factors. [Interruption.] No, although they will not be working in Rosyth, it does not necessarily follow that all of them will leave, because 400 personnel will be working at Faslane, and it will be up to them to decide whether they wish to move.
As for Pitreavie, the announcement that we made some months ago related to the rescue co-ordination centre. That will be placed at RAF Leuchars in Fife. Although the hon. Lady is correct to point out that it will not be at Pitreavie, she will acknowledge that it will be in the same part of Scotland.

Mr. John Ward: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that the people of Poole will be dismayed by his announcement today that the 40-year association with the Royal Marines is to be broken. Is he aware that we should be careful to ensure that any savings are spent on weapons, and not on bricks and mortar to house the Royal Marines elsewhere? In particular, will he consider what efforts the Government could make to compensate for job losses? Can he tell us what is to happen to the joint warfare school, which was moved to Poole at considerable public expense only a few years ago?

Mr. Rifkind: I can understand my hon. Friend's sadness at the move from Poole of the Royal Marines, but it will save some £12 million over the next 10 years; therefore, sadly, it was difficult not to reach the decision that that was the right thing to do. As with any other closures, there will be a consultation period of some three months, and we will carefully examine any suggestions that come forward as a result of that. The relocation of the joint warfare school is the subject of a separate tri-service study, and we will announce the outcome of that as soon as we are able to.

Mr. Bruce George: Many Secretaries of State have appeared before the House—certainly since 1985—to announce cuts. In order to achieve the Government's target of reducing defence expenditure to under 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question that his hon Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) asked? It was right to use a Nelsonian tactic against a descendant of Nelson. The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee asked, "Is this the end of the cuts? Will there now be stability ?" The House would welcome an honest answer from the Secretary of State on the subject.
Secondly, the future of the Ministry of Defence police was one of the subjects that the Secretary of State omitted from his very detailed presentation. One of the dafter suggestions of the Blelloch committee was that redundant soldiers should replace Ministry of Defence policemen who were to be made redundant. Has that idea been knocked on the head?

Mr. Rifkind: On the Ministry of Defence police, a study published today identifies the need for further work before we can reach a conclusion on the Blelloch recommendations. I answered the earlier part of the hon.


Gentleman's questions in my answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), when I emphasised that we must continue the search for efficiency. No Government Department will expect to be exempted from that. My announcement today gives total authority to my statement that the Government are committed to maintaining the fighting strength of our armed forces, and we are not going to depart from that.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that he made a speech on 24 June 1993 in which he said that there would be a reduction of only 450 in the work force at Rosyth. He went on to say that there was every confidence that, if the work force applied themselves, they would increase their numbers, employment and benefits. That seems to have gone by the board. I have one simple question. Why?

Mr. Rifkind: I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend: it has not gone by the board. The statement that he mentioned referred to the royal dockyard at Rosyth, and it is heavily involved in work at the moment and ha; good prospects, and its management are optimistic. I stand by the remarks I made.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I welcome that part of the Secretary of State's statement that I hope finally removes the doubt about the future and role of the Territorial Army? Will he clarify whether, as rumoured, there is to be a significant reduction in financial provision for travel to training? Does he realise that that would affect Territorial Army units in Northern Ireland? He must know that any impediment to better training would be disastrous, and likely to undermine the fitness for role of such units.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our conclusions on the Territorial Army. With regard to his question, we are examining the issue. I can assure him that I would not want to support any outcome that made it unreasonable or impossible for members of the TA in Northern Ireland to carry out their proper responsibilities.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the contention that the world is a more dangerous place is, to put it mildly, debatable? There can be no argument about the fact that, since July 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) announced "Options for Change", the threats to the United Kingdom have very much reduced. It is against that background that we must consider the desire, which is defensible, for savings in the defence budget.
My right hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement are to be congratulated on their achievements. It is in no small measure due to the fact that so many suggestions came from the services that quite radical reductions have been made without any effect on our front-line forces. That is a great achievement.
I have to confess that there were doubters—I was among them. We knew that the ground had been trawled over so many times, and we doubted whether the savings were there. My right hon. and learned Friend must be congratulated, as so much has been done, and the fighting effectiveness of our forces has been maintained.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I emphasise that I attach enormous importance to involving the armed forces in a series of proposals which affect them more than anybody else. More than 3,000 members of the armed forces and civil servants at the Ministry of Defence took the trouble to put their proposals to us, and many of those suggestions were found to be very sensible with regard to how we could deliver the same quality of product without having to use the same resources. It has been an enormously valuable exercise, and it is something on which we wish to build in the years to come so that we can maintain that confidence, relationship and trust.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall let questions on the statement run for a little longer, but not for too long. It has been a long and complex statement, and I want the House to keep in mind the fact that I anticipate a two-day debate on the matter immediately after we return from the summer recess.

Mr. John Hutton: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, and also his statement that tenders will be invited for new batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. Both announcements will be welcomed in my constituency.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look again specifically at the contract for the batch 2 Trafalgars? Will he make it clear that his policy is to maintain 16 SSNs in the Royal Navy? If that is the case, why does the contract for the batch 2 Trafalgars specify an original order for five, and not the three plus two which I understand was the Government's proposal?
May I also ask about the armed forces medical services? On what basis does the Secretary of State classify the medical services as support services, and not as part of the front line? How many of the 1,600 doctors and dentists who are currently in the regular armed forces will be made redundant as a result of his statement?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the industrial orders which we have made. I cannot give precise details on the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines. That is essentially because we are entering into negotiations on price, and obviously there are matters which we will wish to discuss with those who are anxious to build the boats on our behalf.
As for the medical services, we must have military medical expertise available on the front line and in combat situations when required. The particular changes which we have announced are with regard to hospital establishments within the United Kingdom. Those are important, but they can be provided on a joint basis, rather than on a separate service basis, and together would provide military medical hospital annexes which will meet the requirements of the forces.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends will know that I set them a challenge at the beginning of the cost reduction study, which I fully supported, of reducing costs and not having to build a grandiose office block north of Bristol. They have cut civil service jobs by 7,000, but are continuing with that ridiculous project.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm to the House that, despite the four separate studies during the past


five or six years into the air station at Portland moving to Yeovilton—each of which said that it would not be cost-effective—that move has now been proposed? The total job losses in Dorset, including the marines, will be 2,250. That is a very large number when compared with anything that Rosyth is currently suffering.
We will have an opportunity in Dorset to look at the figures which have been brought forward, particularly as there does not appear to be any consistency with reports which have come from people previously. Finally, what will be the effect of the third reconnaissance regiment within my constituency?

Mr. Rifkind: I can understand my hon. Friend's regret about the proposal for Portland, and I acknowledge his point. It is unfortunately necessary to propose the measure, because it will provide savings of some £40 million over a 10-year period, without operational cost. The proposal is to relocate to Somerset, which is relatively close to Portland.
The employment implications for the local community are that about 150 local people employed at the establishment and about 250 contracted staff will be affected. I acknowledge that some 1,200 service personnel will also be leaving Portland as a consequence of the proposal.

Mrs. Irene Adams: In the light of the Secretary of State's statement, will he now tell the House whether there are any plans to reduce the number of MOD employees at Kentigern house in Glasgow? Will the original target for the numbers now be met?

Mr. Rifkind: As a result of the work that has been done, we have come to the conclusion that the proposal for the army personnel centre to be in Glasgow should be confirmed. As part of the overall changes in manpower, there is likely to be a reduction in the number of people who will work there, but we are still working on the precise figure. However, the work will go to Kentigern house.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend accept my appreciation for his skill in taking the opportunity to boost the front-line services in his announcement today? As he knows, the Royal Marines are a vital part of the cultural and economic life of the city of Plymouth. Will he assure me this afternoon that no hasty decision will be taken to relocate the Royal Marines to north Devon, and that not a single Royal Marine will relocate without the fullest possible consultation?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that this matter must be considered carefully, and we shall wish to take into account the views of the Royal Marines themselves. The issue is being considered because city-centre sites in any city, including Plymouth, are much more expensive. As we have spare capacity in Chivenor, the Royal Marines could benefit considerably by moving to that location. No final conclusion has yet been reached and we shall wish to take account of all the relevant circumstances.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State realise that, far from portraying his announcement on Rosyth as a victory for himself, he should be thoroughly ashamed, because to most logical thinkers it is not a reprieve for Rosyth but a suspended sentence. A naval base without ships hardly fulfils the role envisaged.
On the aspect of a fishery protection service, which is extremely important in Scotland, does he realise that the Scottish Office has a contract with the Royal Navy, and the Royal Navy supports the protection service when any major incident occurs? What he has said today shows that he now intends to privatise that contract. The fishermen in my area and all maritime constituencies would like clarification on that.
Does the Secretary of State agree with Professor Greenwood, of the department of strategic studies at Aberdeen university, that, without a naval base at Rosyth, the oil and gas installations in the North sea will not be offered the full protection that they require?

Mr. Rifkind: On the first question, Rosyth is to become a naval support establishment because the Ministry of Defence believes that all the other activities that currently take place on the base need to continue. That is the basis of my announcement.
On the fishery protection service, there is one fishery protection offshore patrol vessel which the Royal Navy provides for the Scottish fishery protection service. That will continue, and will not be affected in any way by today's announcement.
On Professor Greenwood's article, which I read yesterday, he is obviously unaware that, every day of the year, a minehunter—an official patrol vessel—is in the North sea and available on first call should an incident occur in the North sea, so the operational requirement is not affected by today's announcement.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I welcome my right hon. Friend's enthusiastic acceptance of the military value of British Army bands, whose high standard of excellence is the envy of the entire world, and who are trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham. Why is it necessary to set up yet another long study on musician training, which could have been done over the past year? Why cannot he now set up a joint services music college at Kneller Hall, which provides excellent value for money?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend need not fear that it will be a long study. It is important to see whether some of the facilities used by, for instance, the Royal Air Force to train its musicians might be relevant to other services. We are not starting out with presuppositions. The matter needs to be looked at, and I hope to be able to reach a conclusion on it in the relatively near future.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State will understand the deep disappointment in Pendine in my constituency, where 300 jobs will be lost in an area with no comparable alternative employment. There is also deep resentment that much of the work will move to Shoeburyness, despite the fact that Pendine has a long record as a centre of excellence and works efficiently and cost effectively. Why is there a bias for the south and against the regions?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course I acknowledge the quality of the work force in Pendine. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Pendine and reported to me on that matter.
It is always a sadness when any establishment is closed, but we have had to review the overall requirements of the Army for ranges. Sadly, we have come to the judgment that we have a current over-capacity, so it has been necessary


to indicate certain closures—and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not related to any one part of the country.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the cold war has finished, the hot war in Northern Ireland is heating up. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that. This week, we have had a cruel spiral of a new departure, where politicians are to be on the receiving end of the gun and the bomb. Already, my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has had his home attacked, and it was only by the mercy and providence of God that he and 11 people in that home were not murdered.
Another politician was shot dead in Lisburn; another councillor who has now finished his term and belonged to my party, in the Cookstown council, had his house bombed and destroyed; and a large bomb has been found. Thank God that it was found, for one can only wonder at what devastation it would have caused here on the mainland.
In keeping with that, I ask the Secretary of State, what will be the results of his proposals for the armed forces in Northern Ireland? Is it still his policy to do away with the full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment?

Mr. Rifkind: No proposals in the documents published today will in any way reduce the contribution made by the Army, or the other security forces, to the protection of the people of Northern Ireland and the battle against terrorism. That is part of the front line, and it is part of the role of our armed forces as long as there is a battle against terrorism to be waged. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can assume that that will remain one of our highest priorities.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that today will be regarded as a black day in the history of the Royal Air Force, and that he will be inflicting more damage on it than Goering and the Luftwaffe sought to do in 1940?
Does he appreciate that his anxiety for the privatisation of flying training affects the maintenance of the ethos and traditions of the service; that the quality of that training will be hard to match; that, while Britain remains a member of the Security Council, he and his colleagues will wish to ensure that Britain fulfils its international obligations in response to the growing instability in the world; and that, without an adequately sized Royal Air Force, our contribution cannot be guaranteed?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with the current views of the Royal Air Force and of the Air Force Board. If he had listened to my statement, he would have heard that we have made a major announcement about the upgrading of the Tornado, one of the highest priorities of the Royal Air Force; that we have brought a squadron of Harriers into the front line from the reserves; and that we have announced important orders for laser-guided bombs, which is a very important priority at present. We have announced decisions about a number of other important related issues of that type.
The hon. Gentleman should realise that the fighting capability of the Royal Air Force determines the contribution that it can make to our security and to our national interests, and that, if resources are not

concentrated in the fighting and operational capability of the Royal Air Force, the kind of rather foolish prediction that the hon. Gentleman made would indeed come true.

Mr. David Shaw: Why has music not been tackled on a combined school of music basis at Deal? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not conclude, therefore, that the IRA has now bombed the Royal Marines out of Deal? His quotation of a figure of £300,000 includes the security costs for three sites, when only one is needed for music training. Does he therefore accept that the Ministry of Defence figures are totally false and incorrect? Will he visit Deal, and meet some of the 12,600 people who signed a petition in favour of a combined school of music in Deal?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that Margaret Thatcher told me in 1989 that removing the Royal Marines school of music from Deal would tear the heart out of Deal? Will he also accept that unemployment is greater in Dover and Deal than in many regions of the country whose military establishments have been saved?

Mr. Rifkind: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that subject. Given the background in Deal, we have obviously considered that issue extremely carefully and tried to be as sensitive to those matters as possible. It is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that we have done.
My hon. Friend knows that the Royal Marines themselves believe that it is appropriate for them to move to another location. He knows that the cost of the Royal Marines school in Deal is about £6 million a year. He knows that only about 15 to 20 Royal Marine musicians are trained there each year. That position could not possibly continue indefinitely. Of course we have considered whether there were other options that would have allowed the Royal Marines to continue in Deal and make other uses of the excess capability there. We have not been able to identify any coherent or sensible alternative.
There is now a consultation period of about three months, and if my hon. Friend makes proposals that we have not considered, or can identify factors that we have not correctly assessed, we will wish to consider them. However, the subject has been considered very, very carefully. I do not believe that, if one is as objective as one has to be, it was possible to come to any alternative conclusion.

Mr. Frank Cook: With a son who has now served for some months in Gorajde in Bosnia, I should dearly like to be able to take the term "front line first" at face value, but front lines are dependent on reliable logistic supplies, and the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon that 17 depots are to close.
If I may refer to one specific depot, which employs many of my constituents, I have the report which says that many millions of pounds have been spent on that establishment in the past five years, and several millions of pounds allocated to the next two years' expenditure, making it the most up-to-date component handling centre in Europe, if not the world.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet.

Mr. Cook: Is the depot scheduled for closure? If so, why, and how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman


justify it? I am speaking about Eaglescliffe. How can he justify having spent all that money in the past five years, and more to come, with that decision in mind?

Mr. Rifkind: Those are also difficult and painful decisions, but once it was established that we could meet our requirements with far fewer supply depots and stores, we had to identify the basis on which they should be chosen, and the strong opinion of the Royal Navy was that depots should be retained that were on coastal sites rather than inland. From an operational point of view, for obvious reasons, that is more appropriate to their needs. It was on that basis that, in the cases of Eaglescliffe and of Exeter, the decisions that we have announced today have been taken.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Although the House as a whole will welcome this skilful package, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents will be saddened at the closure of RAF Scampton, one of the RAF's most historic bases, currently the home of the Red Arrows, formerly that of the V bombers and of the Dambusters in the second world war? Will he reconsider that decision and pursue that matter with me?
My right hon. and learned Friend has told me in a letter today that he will retain the married quarters. If he has retained the married quarters, will the runway be retained? If so, is there any chance that the Red Arrows can be left at RAF Scampton? If the base is to close, will he pursue with me how as many jobs as possible, especially on the civilian side—the 250 contractor jobs, the 80 civilian jobs—can be saved and transferred to nearby RAF Waddington?

Mr. Rifkind: The background to that decision is the overall rationalisation of flying training, which will provide savings of about £40 million a year. It has inevitably led to the requirement to close several establishments, such as RAF Scampton. I will wish to listen carefully to any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make, and to seek to ensure that, if Scampton closes, the assets there will be used in the most constructive way that can help lessen the difficulties that are experienced there and elsewhere.

Mr. Terry Lewis: When will the Minister realise that the continual drive for cheaper civilian employees in the services has a deleterious effect on the service personnel left? I have two small examples. In some military establishments, it is almost impossible to raise rugby and football teams. Guard duties have doubled and trebled, so that the personnel are on guard most of the time. What happened to esprit de corps, which is developed through such activities?

Mr. Rifkind: Esprit de corps is overwhelmingly determined by the ability of the armed forces to carry out their primary role. That is why it is important to concentrate resources on that sector. If there are cheaper ways of providing some of the back-up services—civilianisation often provides a cheaper way of meeting some of the needs—we would be neglecting our duty if we did not explore them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on to the business statement.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:—
MONDAY 18 JULY—Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Railways Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) order.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the estimates and supplementary estimates for 1994–95.
TUESDAY 19 JULY—Opposition Day (13th allotted day) (2nd part). Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Water Industry" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 20 JULY—Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 19 July:
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 7073/94 relating to Development of the Trans-European Transport Network.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 5744/94 relating to Voting and Candidacy Rights in Local Elections.
[Tuesday 19 July
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7073/94, Trans-European Transport Networks: Guidelines; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xxiii (1993–94)
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 5744/94, Local Government Elections; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xvi (1993–94) HC 48-xx ( 1993–94).]
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
TUESDAY 18 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
WEDNESDAY 19 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
THURSDAY 20 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—there do appear to be a few.
FRIDAY 21 OCTOBER—Private Members' motions.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and in

particular for telling us the business that we can expect on our return from the summer recess. I also thank him for the Opposition day that he has announced.
The business that he has announced takes us up to the summer recess. This summer's heat makes air pollution, particularly in London, all the more unbearable. I think that hon. Members will be wondering what has happened to the Bill to take forward the environment protection agency promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech on 18 November last year. As this Session moves to a close, I ask the Leader of the House: what has happened to the Bill that was promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last year?
In his rush to pack us off for the summer, I hope that the Leader of the House has not overlooked important announcements that might come from his ministerial colleagues, which I am certain that hon. Members would like to hear. May we have an assurance from the Lord President that there will not be a flood of bad news announcements or any important announcements from Government Departments immediately after we have risen for the recess?
Given the substantial pressure, both from the public and in the House, for reform of the Child Support Agency, is it possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on legislative changes and why they cannot take effect before 1996, before we depart for the summer recess?
Finally, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in wishing the Lord President an enjoyable summer recess. I hope that he fares well in the forthcoming reshuffle.

Mr. Newton: I forbear from commenting on the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am grateful for his good wishes for the summer recess, which are reciprocated.
I cannot hold out the prospect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security making a further statement on the Child Support Agency before the break. Only a little over a week ago, we had a debate in which my right hon. Friend made a substantial speech.
As for announcements, there is no plot to hold things back. As one discovers in Government, timing can always slip, but we are planning to make one or two announcements before the recess, in a sensible and orderly way.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on air pollution and associated matters at Prime Minister's questions, although I acknowledge that he did not touch on the Bill. I would not wish to hold out any prospect of us trying to pass the paving Bill on the environment protection agency before the summer recess. We are looking carefully at that subject, as we are making such good progress on the main Bill.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Select Committee on Procedure is pressing forward with consideration of Prime Minister's questions, about which there has been quite a lot of publicity? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he sent to us. Will he press other hon. Members on their ideas as, although there has been a great deal of heat, the Committee has received little other evidence of how we can improve the situation?

Madam Speaker: Order. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Procedure, his points had little to do with next week's business.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure now whether I should upset you, Madam Speaker, by saying something or upset my right hon. Friend by saying nothing. I am sure that those present in the Chamber will have noted your remarks, and those of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Leader of the House accept that one statement that needs to be made before we rise for the recess is the long-awaited announcement on the future of the Forestry Commission? Does he agree that those who work in forests or are economically dependent on them, and those who enjoy public access to them during the summer holidays, need to know that the commission's future and its work will be secure?

Mr. Newton: I shall just say delicately that there is an inter-relationship between that question and my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about possibilities before the recess.

Mr. David Nicholson: I believe that a Green Paper has been published this afternoon about the future of the dental service and charging for it. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is great interest and concern about the subject, about which there has long been dispute in our constituencies. We have been waiting for a long time for the Government to make up their mind about the Bloomfield report. Will there be an opportunity to debate that important subject next week?

Mr. Newton: There will a number of opportunities to raise various topics next week, but I cannot promise a dedicated debate. My recollection is that my hon. Friend is an assiduous attender of the recess Adjournment debates, so I think that I can predict one topic that may come up. The document published today is a consultative document and a Green Paper, and the views of hon. Members and others will be welcome.

Mr. Alfred Morris: We have just been discussing the concerns of the service people of today; but what about the boys of the old brigade, their widows and other dependants? The right hon. Gentleman will know from its organisations in Essex that the ex-service community is impatient for full implementation of the resolution approved by the House on 1 July about its problems and needs. May we have an oral statement next week about the steps the Government are taking to give full effect to that important resolution?

Mr. Newton: I was present that day and the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that I have had representations from my constituents—I discussed the subject with one of them only last weekend. I do not think that I can promise a statement or add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said at the time.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement in relation to forthcoming business in October effectively means that my constituents, who have been waiting for the legislation contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill,

will not see it enacted during the summer and will therefore have to suffer the activities of new age travellers, summer raves and juvenile crime—all of which the measure was directed towards? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, convey to those in the other place the concern of my constituents about the effect of the amendments passed this week?

Mr. Newton: I must confirm that my statement means that I do not anticipate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becoming law before the summer recess. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly see that a message along the lines that he has set out is sent on his behalf. I would add that it is the usual—although not the invariable—practice for legislation to come into force only some months after it is enacted, to allow time for preparation, so I am not sure that the effect will be quite as dramatic as my hon. Friend suggests.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency has stated that, from September this year, patients with GPs in one geographic area of my constituency—Highgate—will no longer be accepted for treatment at that hospital as a result of Government cuts of £30 million in the district health authority's budget? As that action totally refutes the Government's oft-stated claim that the NHS reforms are working, not least in treating more patients, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time to debate the issue next week, will he at least find time to ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to deliver a statement?

Mr. Newton: This is probably the second or third time that the hon. Lady has raised that point—I have certainly heard it once before. As I cannot promise a statement, the right course for me to follow is to make sure that her remarks are drawn quickly and specifically to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. James Clappison: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and invite my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would be possible to save some of the time being set aside in October for consideration of Lords amendments by expressing to the other place the full force of our constituents' concerns about the mischiefs that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would remedy? Perhaps their Lordships, who do not always have the chance to consider the full force of our constituents' feelings, should bear in mind the extent of the latter's anxieties and their wish to support the good work being done by the police, whose success in reducing crime can only be enhanced by the necessary provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Newton: I have said that I very much understand the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House who have experience of the problem, and the importance of tackling it. I shall, of course, add my hon. Friend's representations to those made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Harry Barnes: The business for next week is obviously affected by the coming three-month recess. Is not a Member without a Parliament rather like a consultant without a hospital, a naval base without ships, or a miner without a pit—redundant?

Mr. Newton: I rather think that constituencies—not just Parliament, which is certainly an important part of a Member's work—come into this point as well. The hon. Gentleman has had a running difference of opinion with me and the vast majority of hon. Members about that matter. A balance must be struck between people's ability to spend time in their constituencies and their ability to spend time here. We shall have to agree to differ about the length of the recess.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on heart disease in the United Kingdom, given last week's report which shows our relatively poor national performance, particularly the rising prevalence of smoking among women? It would be nice if hon. Members on both sides could use our parliamentary time and our media coverage to send out a positive message to the whole of society.

Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the problem and the message. Even so, I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate next week—although my hon. Friend might find a crevice in one of the debates that we are holding.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate early-day motion 1482?
[That this House deplores the failure of Railtrack over many weeks to respond to approaches from Gorton residents and from the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton, regarding the need to provide safety fencing adjacent to Abbey Hey Amateur Football Ground and to secure the sub-station at Vine Street; notes that the failure of Railtrack to make any satisfactory response to such approaches, let alone to carry out urgently the required work, could place in jeopardy the lives of children and other local residents; is concerned to note this lack of concern about such safety issues displayed by this new and unaccountable organisation; and calls on Railtrack, instead of sending out wasteful and silly propaganda folders to honourable Members, to take speedy action to deal with what are, literally, vital matters.]
It seeks to ban bull bars, which research has shown have almost certainly led to 34 avoidable deaths—mostly of children—in collisions. Is it not disturbing that the Transport Research Laboratory has said that it cannot carry out any more research on the subject because it does not have a sponsor? Is it not a reflection on what is unprivatisable in our society when an organisation such as the Transport Research Laboratory cannot fund such research, because no one has a vested financial interest in child safety?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that my total recall of nearly 1,500 early-day motions has broken down on this occasion—[Interruption.] There seems to be a view that the hon. Gentleman may have given us the wrong number for the EDM. I shall take refuge in saying that I shall examine his words and consider what action I might take.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate next week on the rail dispute, which is continuing to cause concern to my constituents? That would give Conservative Members a chance to criticise a pay demand that is four times the rate of inflation and give Opposition Members, especially those

sponsored by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, the opportunity to explain why a restructuring package that could deliver 22 per cent. increases in basic pay is not even being discussed.

Madam Speaker: I heard all that last week.

Mr. Newton: That is helpful, Madam Speaker, but as my hon. Friend says, he is concerned precisely because the situation this week is the same. There is still a strike in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. Those pursuing it should reconsider.
Even without a debate, there is, as it happens, an opportunity to consider the matter on Monday, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on early-day motion 1508?
[That this House condemns the Right honourable Member for Copeland for stating during the second reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill that he had 'shown constant support for the European Union', Official Report, column 700, and that whilst the Labour Party had changed on Europe his position had never changed; and notes that in October 1971 he voted against the principle of Britain's entry to the EEC when 69 of his honourable Friends, including the late John Smith, defied the Labour whip and voted in favour, that in February 1972 he voted against the European Communities Bill and that in April 1986 he voted against the Single European Act, along with the honourable Member for Sedgefield.]
It highlights the extraordinary statement by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), made in the House this week, that he had never changed his mind on Europe. A debate would give us the opportunity to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman voted against the European Community in 1971 and 1972, and voted against the Single European Act in 1986, yet now wants to persuade the House that European monetary union and the surrender of the British veto in Europe represent a sensible and consistent policy.

Mr. Newton: My total recall system has now recovered, and has put into my mind the fact that, on top of what my hon. Friend says, the right hon. Gentleman presumably stood on the Labour manifesto for the 1983 general election, which stated:
British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain—to be completed within the lifetime of the parliament".

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have an urgent debate on the plight of rail commuters? The situation is not the same as last week's since, thanks to the selfishness of the union, long-suffering commuters will face two days a week of disruption in pursuit of an 11 per cent. no-strings-attached pay claim—this to be financed by commuting constituents whose commuting costs have already risen by 6 per cent. Those constituents have noted the decisive decision to make no comment on the dispute affecting them by the three contenders for the Labour party leadership.

Mr. Newton: I hope that the public have duly noted my hon. Friend's last point. I share his view that it is quite unjustified to hold the travelling public to ransom for the sort of increase being demanded.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Madam Speaker: I have announcements to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 20 July.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Monday 18 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list.
As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
I also remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 21 July, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). Sadly, as you know, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman cannot be present.
You will recall, Madam Speaker—who could forget?—the speech by the hon. Member for Neath last night. I draw attention to column 1124 of Hansard, where you, Madam Speaker, said:
The hon. Member for Neath said that he would mention names, but that he had already let the Members concerned know that he was going to raise the matter. Is that quite clear? I have already been deceived once today in this House on that matter. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has informed Members?

Mr. Hain: I certainly have, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you."
Shortly after that, the hon. Member for Neath mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who, on a point of order, said:
I was not advised by the hon. Gentleman that he would mention my situation. I think that he has breached the protocol of the House.

Madam Speaker: When did the hon. Member for Neath put the notices on the board?

Mr. Hain: I think that it was just after 10 o'clock, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that the board closes at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Hain: I put them on the board. I was not sure when the debate was coming up. I put them on the board at the earliest opportunity that I had."
By column 1129, the situation was slightly different. The hon. Member for Neath said:
It is my fault that I did not put notice on the board until just after 10 o'clock. Although I have been a Member for three years, I was not aware that there was a rigid rule that the board closed at 10 o'clock. That is my fault. I came in and presented the notice to the board and found that it was closed."—[Official Report, 13 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1124–29.]
Those are two different versions, and it is difficult to see how both can be entirely correct.
Thanks to the diligence of our messengers, the board was open until 10.30 pm last night. If the hon. Gentleman's first statement was true and he went to the board at 10 pm, he could have presented his letters and they would have been stamped.
I have one of the envelopes, but I believe that the others are similar. It shows that it was stamped, not at the board but in the post office, at 1 am. Similarly, if the messengers say that they maintained the board until 10.30 pm, the statement that the hon. Member for Neath went there at 10 pm and found it closed also needs closer examination.
There is a distinct possibility that you, Madam Speaker, and the House deserve an apology from the hon. Member for Neath. I should be most grateful if you would look into the matter.

Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The entire House knows how anxious I am that right hon. and hon. Members inform other hon. Members about whom they propose to comment. I was most concerned by last night's exchanges and I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised.
During business questions, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made a remark about the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I take it that he notified the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to do so?

Mr. Anthony Coombs: No, Madam Speaker, I did not. I apologise.

Madam Speaker: I take this opportunity to remind the House that I am proud to defend the robustness of exchanges in the House but I despair sometimes at the bad parliamentary manners and behaviour displayed by some hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is another week to go before the summer recess. I hope that, come Monday, I shall see some improvement.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall the frequent attempts to establish better facilities for Line of Route visitors. One suggestion is that they could use some of the facilities available in the banqueting rooms. Yesterday, the serious allegation was made that a Member of Parliament was offered a sum in excess of £10,000 a year to book banqueting rooms in the name of an unidentified body.
In the past, I have tabled parliamentary questions asking for lists of all companies that use the banqueting rooms in the names of hon. Members. That information has always been denied to me and to other hon. Members. In view of the seriousness of the allegation made yesterday and of another—that American visitors were buying places at banqueting room functions—will your office, Madam Speaker, undertake to publish the details that I have sought to ensure transparency and so that we all know what is happening in respect of banqueting room bookings?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for the Chair, but it is a serious point that might be referred to the Catering Committee.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), asked a question about bull bars. Today, in the European Legislation Sub-Committee on Road Safety, the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave the clearest sign that a statement about various traffic matters that is likely to include provisions relating to bull bars will be made next week. I am afraid that I did not get permission to mention his name.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps my remarks today will be taken to heart by all hon. Members present—and I hope that those who are not present will take the trouble to read Hansard and learn my views.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)

Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Wales, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1568), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
It has become something of a modest tradition that, whenever I rise to speak on fishing matters, others seek to intervene to make their points. I shall be happy to give way to right hon. and hon. Members during the course of my remarks, provided that they will do me the courtesy of not attacking me at the end of the debate if there is not sufficient time for their own contributions.
Commercial fishing is an important industry. Last year, landings in the United Kingdom and abroad were worth £517 million. Its activities help to support our coastal communities through the direct provision of employment and indirectly, through processing, harbour and related industries. That income also helps to maintain the infrastructure and sheer attractiveness of many of our coastal areas.
Everyone connected with the fishing industry knows that its long-term future and viability are closely linked to the need to achieve a proper balance between the fishing effort represented by our current fleet and stocks of fish in the sea. The problem was brought home most graphically to me when I prepared recently for a Radio 4 interview on the state of fish stocks in the North sea. Probed by the interviewer, I was able to tell him that over the last decade the spawning stock of cod had dropped 58 per cent. and catch levels by 40 per cent., while fishing effort remained about the same. That emphasises all too clearly the problems that we face with all the main white fish stocks.

Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend have any comment to make on press reports of European Commission proposals, particularly in relation to Spain and Portugal? All sorts of disturbing stories are flying around.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend anticipates my further comments on control of fishing effort. Only today we received by fax from Brussels detailed information on the Commission's proposals. Those details were presented to a technical committee meeting in Brussels this morning. Some comment has been premature, to say the least, and ill informed. I am an assiduous reader of Fishing News, and draw my hon. Friend's attention to a most statesmanlike and considered comment by Mr. Bob Allan, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Fishing News reported that he
was concerned at the proposals but stressed that as yet no detailed document had been issued. Caution was necessary until the full details and their likely effects could be evaluated, although the likelihood of an across the board days at sea regime being introduced had been foreshadowed at the April Council meeting on Spanish access.
I think that that is a very proper stance. Mr. Allan was right to caution us against jumping to conclusions: these are very early days.
The proposals respond to the wider issue of the control of the effort represented by the Spanish fishing fleet in the light of the removal, under the accession treaty, of the basic and periodic list system. They cover waters from the Shetland islands all the way around the western


approaches, including the area known as the Irish box, and through to the English channel. They constitute a comprehensive package, but we shall want to examine them in the utmost detail. To that end, we have already arranged a meeting with the industry next Thursday, 21 July. It is unlikely that the Fisheries Council will discuss the matter in detail until its meeting on 23 November, so everyone will have ample opportunity to consider it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will all the papers be available to hon. Members representing maritime constituencies? These matters are of great concern to us all, and we should like to study them in detail before making our own responses.
May I ask the Minister, in his meetings with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or any other organisation representing the industry, to ensure a faster response than that given by the federation in September 1993 in regard to reducing the fishing effort? In fact, no official response has yet been received.

Mr. Jack: I apologise for that. I have certainly done my best to keep the Scottish industry informed of developments. I assure the hon. Lady, and other hon. Members with fishing constituencies, that I shall be happy to discuss the proposals once we have had an opportunity to study them in depth. My door will be open. It is important for the proposals to be properly understood; when hon. Members have had time to consider them, they will be able to register their views on how their constituents will be affected with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for agriculture and the environment.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister said that he would meet representatives of the industry next Thursday. There is currently great concern in the port of Portavogie, which the Minister visited last year, about the reported decisions being made in Brussels. As the Minister said, these are still only proposals and we do not know the details, but can he assure me that the Northern Ireland fishing industry will be represented at that meeting as its representatives were clearly not aware of it when I spoke to them today?

Mr. Jack: At this very early stage, I shall be discussing the proposals with my officials. Representatives of the industry are not coming to see me yet, but I am sure that they will want to come and knock on my door—which, as always, will be opened with pleasure. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, however, and I shall ensure that the views of Northern Ireland fishermen are taken into account.
I am, of course, aware that the proposals are as important to people north of the border as they are to those south of the border, and to all who fish the waters of the western approaches. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the door has been kept firmly shut in the past, certainly in regard to Spain and Portugal and the North sea. That has caused concern to many hon. Members, and the change of policy is, in its own way, good news.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance which I am certain he can give easily?

Fishermen in the south-west fear that Portugal and Spain will always do better than Britain. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our industry in the south-west is properly protected?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend has raised an important aspect of the whole question of effort control. Ours are Community-wide proposals, which will apply to all member states with rights to fish in the waters concerned. Underlying that issue is the question of enforcement. I am acutely aware of the sensitivities aroused, especially in the south-west, by the many reports of rule-breaking by other Community states. I give my hon. Friend this undertaking: along with the Commissioner, I will continue to press the point that, unless we have credible, uniform enforcement of the common fisheries policy, the policy itself will not be credible.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister gave us a categorical assurance that Spanish vessels would not be allowed into the North sea. Does that mean that they will not be able to fish for either pressure or non-pressure stocks? The Minister's approach has been to concede the principle of full Spanish accession before the details have been worked out; from a negotiating point of view, that is barmy.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman made that point to me yesterday, with a smile on his face, when he came to see my right hon. Friend the Minister and me. I pointed out to him that when we discussed the point in the December Fisheries Council it was as a result of the United Kingdom's stalwart stand that the original Commission proposal was not implemented. That would have been a blank-cheque approach: it would have removed all controls. We did not have an iota of detailed information about what would have replaced the present measures to control access to waters around our shores. If it were not for the United Kingdom, we would not now be considering an excellent effort-controlling measure.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) can smile as much as he likes, but the accession treaty has made it absolutely clear that at the end of 1995 the area known as the Irish box would go. To do nothing about that would have been a dereliction of duty. The hon. Gentleman should know me better. I felt that it was very important for us to press on to secure an agreement on the principles, which would then guide the Commission in working out the details before there could be any backsliding to weaken the controls that had been proposed to deal with the effort represented by the Spanish fleet.
This is a very sensitive matter. I think that we obtained an extremely good deal in the end, and I am glad to say that the United Kingdom took the lead in obtaining it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The debate seems to be going very wide of the scheme and the provision of grants for the decommissioning of vessels. Someone will have to explain to me very convincingly how the exchange that has just taken place relates to that subject.

Mr. Jack: The measures clearly relate to the way in which the remaining fishing effort of the fleet will be deployed after the decommissioning scheme has had its effect. I think that hon. Members have been probing to find


out how that effort would be controlled, and how those fishing around our shores would interact with other Community members. Part of the proposals relate to the achievement of Community-wide effort reduction programmes within what is known as the multi-annual guidance programme.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my intervention relates directly to decommissioning. I give you my word on that. I have some experience of the industry.
As a fishing nation, we are badly adrift in terms of our multi-annual guidance programme. Given that the measure by which it is defined—a reduction in fleet tonnage and power—is so crude, what progress has been made in Brussels to arrive at a sensible and effective measure of fishing capacity? Surely the Minister agrees that a reduction in tonnage and power does not necessarily lead to a reduction in fishing capacity.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may have got his terminology slightly mixed up. We are talking about controlling fishing effort, which has a direct relationship with both the capacity of a vessel and its power. That is the formula to which the multi-annual guidance programme refers. We do not take a single approach to the controlling of effort: other measures are involved, which I shall outline shortly.
I highlighted earlier the difficulties involving cod stock and the rest of the whitefish stocks in the North sea and I made the point that it was a Community-wide problem. With that in mind, the Government sought in 1993 to introduce a series of measures to help to reduce the fishing effort of our fleet and to meet our share of the Community-wide reduction programme—the multi-annual guidance programme. A key part of the MAGP was the £25 million decommissioning scheme, with which hon. Members will be familiar from the debate on 7 July last year.
At that time, we made it clear that the scheme would be introduced over a three-year period so that we could closely monitor its results and, if necessary, adjust the qualifying criteria to ensure that the money available removed the maximum amount of effort possible, moved us towards meeting Community sectoral effort reduction targets and gave good value for money to the taxpayer. It is perhaps worth reflecting that in addition to the decommissioning scheme the Government spend on the industry some £16 million a year on fisheries research, about £12 million on vessel safety, grants for processing and port improvements, and a further £22 million on enforcement.

Mrs. Ewing: In the context of decommissioning, is it not true that only £11 million of the £500 million allocated for decommissioning schemes in the European Union between 1987 and 1992 has been taken up by the Government? How will they square that circle? If we are to have a decommissioning scheme, it must be effective to meet the requirements of the MAGP.

Mr. Jack: I hope that my remarks on this matter will illustrate clearly to the hon. Lady that we have an effective scheme, that we want to spend our total of £25 million, and that the scheme will—with other measures—make a significant contribution towards meeting our target.
Even with that in mind, the last time that decommissioning was debated in the House, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) chastised me for the size of our decommissioning scheme and went on to try to outbid me. I noted at the time, however, that he broke the Labour party's first and only commandment—"Thou shalt not give any promise"—by making his outbidding a firm spending commitment. In so doing, he merely illustrated the Opposition view that every problem can be solved with money. That is classic short-termism and does not face the need to address, as the Government have addressed, the importance of having a package of measures designed to benefit stocks in the long term by further reducing fishing effort. Our effort reduction package deals with the current structural problems and helps to conserve fish stocks now and in the future. The package comprises technical conservation measures, licence penalties and decommissioning.
The industry has presented some useful suggestions on technical conservation. We have evaluated them and are now discussing them with the European Commission. It is our hope that those measures can contribute to achieving our MAGP target. In addition, we have a system of licence penalties whereby capacity must be given up whenever existing licences are transferred or aggregated—for example, by an owner who wishes to license a new, more powerful vessel. The industry has asked us to reconsider improving the scheme's operation and we have agreed to do so.
Decommissioning lies at the heart of our effort reduction policy. So far, the 1993–94 scheme has removed 135 vessels, about 4,800 tonnes of capacity, at a cost of £7.8 million. In a recent announcement, we made it clear that we now wished to deploy the remainder of our £25 million. The scheme represents the next step along that path for the year 1994–95. A total of £8.9 million will be available, a sum which incorporates the underspend on the 1993–94 scheme. The rules of that round will be familiar because the scheme is closely based on the successful 1993 scheme which, by using a tendering system, enabled us to remove the maximum amount of active capacity with the available funds.
In a nutshell, the scheme provides for owners of eligible vessels to submit tenders for the amount of decommissioning grant for which they would be prepared to scrap their vessel and surrender its licences. Details of the scheme were made public on 15 June and the closing date for applications is 15 August 1994. Applications will be ranked in terms of pounds-per-vessel-capacity unit. Successful applicants must submit proof of scrapping, deregistration and surrender of all licences in respect of a vessel before 1 March 1995.
The main criteria for determining eligibility have not changed. Vessels must be United Kingdom registered and licensed, more than 10 metres in overall length, more than 10 years old and seaworthy. We want to target active vessels, so we have also retained the requirement that vessels must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips in each of the past two years.
We considered carefully whether the scheme should be more precisely targeted—for example, by confining it to trawlers or beam trawlers—but we concluded that that would be too restrictive. There is a new requirement, however, that vessels applying should hold a full pressure-stock licence, thus focusing the scheme on vessels that fish the most vulnerable stocks. Moreover, the 100


days at sea on fishing trips must have been spent in Community waters. The aim is to exclude vessels fishing primarily in distant waters where pressure on the stocks is less intense.
We are excluding vessels which were successful in the 1993 tender but were not scrapped. We included a warning to that effect in the 1993 explanatory leaflet to discourage withdrawals, and the current scheme implements that rule.
Application forms are available in local fishery offices and have already been sent to fishermen known to be interested in the scheme. We look forward to a keen response with realistic bids which will enable the 1994 scheme to be as successful and effective as the 1993 scheme in making a useful contribution to conserving stocks and achieving our MAGP targets.
Hon. Members will recall that the first round of decommissioning was linked to our proposals for days-at-sea restrictions, as the latter were intended to constrain the effort of the fleet which remained—a point which, I am glad to say, was acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mrs. Ewing: Is not the average decommissioning grant about £60,000, so that by the time vessel owners have paid scrapping charges and other charges, and settled taxation bills, many of them are left with nothing? Is the Minister satisfied that the amount of money being provided for decommissioning is sufficient to meet the needs of our fleet? Can he tell us what other aspects of effort limitation have been used by other European Union countries, as all of them seem to have used decommissioning to meet the MAGP target?

Mr. Jack: On the figure that the hon. Lady quoted, it is misleading to look at average amounts per vessel because the size range is substantial. When we opened the doors last time, 433 vessels applied under the scheme, which showed that people thought it was effective. I believe that 134 vessels were ultimately decommissioned with the first tranche of money. We have since tried to refine the scheme and to focus it more carefully.
With regard to other European Union states, the Netherlands has relied on a days-at-sea scheme to assist in meeting its targets while others have put more weight on decommissioning to remove tonnage. The hon. Lady will note that I placed clear emphasis on the question of controlling effort, particularly that of the remainder of the fleet. Other Community countries have omitted to emphasise that aspect—perhaps to their cost. The effectiveness of the decommissioning scheme is determined not just by the capacity that is taken out, but by what the remaining capacity will do.
Hon. Members will recall that we suspended the introduction of our effort reduction measure—the days-at-sea policy—because the judicial review case of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations was referred to the European Court of Justice. We always made it clear, however, that we wanted the decommissioning scheme to provide real long-term benefits to the fishing industry. The scheme will not achieve that if remaining vessels increase their fishing effort and thus undermine the impact of decommissioning. That would be unwelcome to

the fishing industry and also to the taxpayers, who will want to know that expenditure is being used effectively and provides good value for money.
The industry claim that the current fleet is already fishing flat out. If that is the case, in spite of decommissioning, effort should not increase. As decommissioning progresses, we intend to monitor the fishing effort of the remaining fleet. We shall not want to be heavy handed about it, but if effort increases we shall have to take suitable effort-control measures to deal with the situation. I hope that the industry will collectively exercise restraint and so make the use of such controls unnecessary in the context of this scheme. My wish is to see a healthy, successful and responsible fishing industry. It cannot have a healthy and successful future without taking responsibility, and that includes ensuring that fishing effort does not increase.
I know from my discussions with industry representatives and with individual fishermen that they are willing to contribute to conservation and to achieving our Community targets. We are also working with the industry in other ways—for example, to improve the marketing of fish in order to improve returns. All of the measures that I have outlined are important factors in developing the long-term viability of the industry.
I look forward to continuing to work with the fishing industry, trying to chart our way through what can sometimes seem the difficult and detailed waters of complex Community schemes.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that if effort limitation is to be effective as a conservation tool there has to be a rough balance between the size of the fleet and stocks? How far are we from achieving such an objective?

Mr. Jack: We are some way from achieving it. I wish that we were further along that road, but it took us some time carefully to think through the question of controlling the effort of the remainder of the fleet. I have listened carefully to hon. Members with constituency fishing interests and to the industry. I had hoped that, in view of my emphasis on how we intended to deal with the remainder of the effort during this period of decommissioning, the hon. Gentleman would have understood that I have tried very hard to take to heart the messages that the industry has sent to me.
I also made it clear that we have a package of measures, such as licence aggregation. The industry has asked us about how that element of our effort reduction programme can be improved and I look forward to receiving its proposals on that subject. The hon. Gentleman will also know that we are actively evaluating technical conservation measures which the industry has sensibly put to us. They are in what could be called the appraisal stage. Once we ascertain how the decommissioning scheme, as it is now constituted, progresses, we can be clearer about the distance between that sum total of effort reduction and the target that we have to meet. The targets are now legally binding in the Community. We want to achieve those targets; if there is a gap, we shall have to examine other ways of doing so.
I hope that we are back on the right road, especially with the decommissioning scheme. We have made our intentions clear, and I commend the scheme to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We welcome the fact that we at least have an announcement to the effect that the second phase of the decommissioning scheme is going ahead. We also welcome the fact that the underspend from the first year's round of decommissioning has been included in the global sum. The Minister will appreciate that we have pressed him on that issue several times. We are glad to learn that the money has not been lost, but has been kept within the funds available.
Our only regret is that the scheme is still the same inadequate scheme and part of an inadequate fisheries policy, as the Minister will know from his contact with the industry. The Minister told us that he reads Fishing News assiduously, so I am sure that he read the editorial entitled "Bankruptcy of Ideas", which states:
The resurrection of the decommissioning scheme is welcome but it falls woefully short of the positive policy for which the industry has been waiting.
Some will now be able to go ahead and leave the industry, but those who want to stay—the vast majority—still have not a clue as to where the industry is going.
That causes serious problems in terms of planning and investment and confidence in the industry—problems which one or two hon. Members have made clear to the Minister.
There is also a problem with meeting the targets set by the multi-annual guidance programme. I shall refer to that in due course, because that is the underlying issue in the matching of fishing effort to available fish stocks. We now know that the first round of decommissioning took out approximately 2.2 per cent. of fleet capacity. Even with the measures that the Minister has outlined, such as licence aggregation, we are looking at a reduction of only about 7 per cent. by 1996, when, under European Community law, the Government have to meet a target reduction in the region of 20 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly said.
Our failure has already been criticised by the Commission in its report on the MAGP targets. It stated that
figures show this country"—
the United Kingdom—
significantly outside the intermediate objective for 1993.
It is, therefore, clear that, even now, we are nowhere near meeting our targets.
Although we need effort limitation—the Labour party has always made it clear that it recognises that that must go hand in glove with decommissioning—we need a much more generous and effective decommissioning scheme if we are to make progress towards meeting our MAGP by 1996. Of the £7.5 million spent on decommissioning last year, approximately £5 million was clawed back by the Government under the Fontainebleau agreement and, of course, fishermen paid tax on the money that they received. It is, therefore, a very minor scheme. The overall sum that the Government make available to the industry and to the primary sector in general can hardly be regarded as generous.
The failure to make progress in fleet reduction and give a clear policy lead has severe consequences for the whole United Kingdom industry in denying the UK structural aid to modernise its fishing fleet, which is aging rapidly. Again, the Minister is well aware of that issue. We are simply storing up problems for the future, as is mentioned in the Commission's proposals.
The UK's fishing fleet is being put at a severe disadvantage in the European Union. As has been said, in the six years to 1992, the European Union made £250 million available for decommissioning, but it was paid to other member states. Of the total of around £500 million, including construction and modernisation grants, about £11 million has so far come to the United Kingdom.
The fact that we have done so badly in getting a share of the available pot of money is a national decision, not a European Union decision. The Minister knows that. When I met the previous Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin, he told me that he had repeatedly pressed the Minister's predecessors to bid for decommissioning funds because he recognised that, by not introducing a decommissioning scheme some years ago, we were building up to the problems that we now face.
The problem for the United Kingdom fleet is made worse by the Commission's proposals, although I admit that they are only proposals and we need to examine them in detail. However, if the Commission is taking on board the Government's ideas, which include a days-at-sea restriction, the logical conclusion—the introduction of standard vessel fishing days to replace the Irish box—has severe implications for the British fleet because if we have not made progress towards meeting our MAGP targets, our fleet will be far more restricted than that of other member states so that we can meet our targets. The same restrictions will not be applied to Spain and Portugal. They will be free to fish because they are nearer to meeting their targets.

Mr. Jack: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman mentioned investment in new vessels and where the money came from. He will be aware that, under the terms of the Fontainebleau agreement, the cost to the UK is something like 71 per cent. of any modernisation schemes. Will he outline in detail his own proposals? How much would he spend; on what would he spend it; and how would he judge the criteria for such schemes?

Mr. Morley: I shall be happy to answer that question. Indeed, I intend to deal with it in my proposals.
There is also the hypothetical situation—where we shall be in some years' time. I shall tell the Minister how we would find the funding for the schemes now. There are a number of ways of doing that.
The total decommissioning scheme is spread over three years; we have already had one of those years. The Labour party sees no reason why the total amount of money cannot be put into one year's allocation to achieve a greater reduction in the fleet rather than spreading it over three years. What is the point of prolonging the agony? It would make more sense to remove the overcapacity as quickly as possible rather than spreading the money over another two years.
Of course, the money has to be found within the global Government budget and I am happy to give the Minister a few pointers. For example, the Labour party could have found £350 million that has been wasted on management consultants—and their cars—in the national health service. We could have saved the £700 million that has been spent on British Rail privatisation and consultancies and the £500 million spent on the outside consultancies that saved only £10 million for the Government.
We could also have saved £3 million on the parents charter, which was sent to every house in the country whether or not any children lived there. We could have


saved £500 million on the national curriculum scheme that was abandoned after being introduced. There is certainly a few bob there that a Labour Government could have saved, to put into a more effective decommissioning scheme. If the Minister would like a bit more advice on where to find the money, I should be only too pleased to give him some, although I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I did.

Mr. Jack: I have added up those sums and have reached £2 billion in firm commitments from the hon. Gentleman to spend on the fishing industry. I look forward to hearing what the Labour Treasury spokesman says about that.

Mr. Morley: Now we can see how Conservative central office reach all those ludicrous figures that Conservative Members sometimes throw at the Labour party.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will not two thirds of the money that this country spends on decommissioning probably be recovered from the Commission, anyway?

Mr. Morley: That is right. In all fairness and all seriousness, the £25 million being made available is a tiny sum. It certainly compares badly with the £3 billion a year spent on the agricultural sector. I appreciate that that is paid under European regulations, some of which are outside the Government's control. But when the question of the imbalance has been raised before, the Government's response is that farmers are used to such subsidies, so they are okay for the agricultural sector, but not for the fishing sector.
Moreover, presumably the Government put into their budget a sum for enforcing the days-at-sea measures, which will not have been used because of the delay caused by the court case. I should have thought that there were a few million pounds there, too—a budget that has already been committed and could have gone into the overall pool for the decommissioning scheme. So a fair bit of money could be found within existing budgets this year to enlarge the scheme and make it more effective.
The EC proposals will indeed have a severe effect on what will happen in the areas outside the Irish box, such as the south-western approaches. As I said, there is a threat of a new Spanish armada and we need more details of how the proposals will work. Certainly, we will examine them closely and consider the implications for the industry. We need a strong policy framework within which the industry can work—one that will give it stability and enable it to plan ahead.
I hope that the Minister will take into account the developments that the Opposition would like to see. First, the whole programme should be rolled into one year to try to enlarge the scheme, increase decommissioning and reduce the effort faster than the proposals suggest. We also want a far more effective decommissioning scheme, with more resources going into it—and I believe that those resources could be found.
The scheme should be more carefully targeted. The Minister touched on that subject, but it needs to be considered on a sectoral basis, where the pressure is. We also want more details about how the scheme is being monitored to evaluate its effectiveness.
There should be a stronger emphasis on the social

dimension of restructuring. Of course the scheme is about decommissioning, but it does not benefit all the crews of the boats concerned. We want effective use of regional funding and the proposed PESCA programme, which the Minister has discussed with us. It is a modest programme, but it can be directed towards fishing communities and thus benefit a wider group of people.
We must consider again the disposal of decommissioned boats. As the Minister will know, I have written to him on behalf of a potential buyer from Sri Lanka, who has a firm and positive offer to buy decommissioned boats from the United Kingdom and take them to Sri Lanka. He is also prepared to obtain assurances from the Sri Lankan Government that those boats will not find their way back into the European Union fleet. I accept that we must take such possibilities into consideration, but there are ways of ensuring that the boats do not find their way back into the fleet—not least the fact that they need licences.
Approximately £8,000 of the money that owners get for decommissioning is spent on scrapping. If we could find a workable scheme, that would be to the advantage of all concerned. I hope that the Minister will consider the idea.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Of course I shall reply to his letter. However, I have raised the question of disposal of vessels through third world countries with the Overseas Development Administration, and there are genuine practical problems involved. So far, in spite of searching quite hard, I have not yet come up with a practical scheme that satisfies all the criteria—not least the logistics of getting vessels there. Many owners, in scrapping vessels, take certain equipment out to release additional sums. On the final point about the cost, that is of course tax allowable.

Mrs. Ewing: Only 25 per cent.

Mr. Morley: Yes; 25 per cent. is tax allowable, I think. I take the Minister's point; those are serious issues, but the people behind the scheme are convinced that they can satisfy the criteria. The fact that some of the more high-tech equipment in the boats will be stripped out is not necessarily a disadvantage in low-tech fishing industries in developing countries.
We also want a proper fund, through the European Union, for an early retirement scheme in the fishing industry. I know that the Commission has considered the idea and I believe that such an arrangement would be of benefit to the overall scheme.
As a matter of urgency, the Commission should be pressed to act on a proposal from the United Kingdom fishermen's associations—the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—to react to their detailed and sensible proposals for technical conservation measures and their suggestions on how those can be built into effort limitation and taken into account. Many of us are surprised that it has taken so long to receive a response from the Commission.
There has been far too much delay and indecision on fishing in this country. We need a stronger policy. The present approach seems to encourage decommissioning by bankruptcy. That is the implication of leaving the issue for so long and not having an adequate scheme. We need stronger action to build a secure and sustainable fishing industry and a modern and prosperous fleet. The present Government approach will achieve neither of those ends.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I see that six hon. Members wish to catch my eye, arid we have precisely 61 minutes left for the debate.

Mr. David Harris: For the reason that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be especially brief—and I shall surprise the Minister by starting with warm congratulations. I have not always congratulated either him or his predecessor on the conduct of fisheries policy, especially over the vexed question of days-at-sea, but now I say thank you most sincerely to my hon. Friend for adopting what I consider is now the correct approach to the Government's relationship with the industry.
The Minister said that his door was always open and, as proof of that, he has agreed to see some representatives of the industry from the south-west next Tuesday on the vexed question of the monkfish quota. I have no doubt that, at that meeting, we shall also want to probe the whole issue of the proposed days-at-sea restrictions scheme, which has come, albeit in outline and preliminary form, from Brussels. I shall return to that.
My hon. Friend's attitude was summed up in his speech. If I correctly interpreted it, the latter part especially marks something of a change of approach by the Government on the vexed question of trying to bring about a better balance between fishing capacity on one hand and availability of stocks on the other. That, of course, is the central issue that has bedevilled fisheries policy for many years.
I am not sure whether I am interpreting my hon. Friend's words correctly, but I wonder what his attitude is now to the previous national days-at-sea restrictions scheme. Is he putting it completely on one side and, if so, I wonder whether he would go one step further and give a pledge that that legislation may be repealed, so that the case before the European Court could be dropped. That would be a very positive step forward in the light of his remarks, especially towards the end of his speech.
My hon. Friend said that decommissioning was at the heart of the Government's policy. That brings me to the scheme and the motion before the House. As my hon. Friend knows, I share the view of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that the decommissioning scheme is welcome, but that £25 million over three years is not sufficient. I was one of the Conservative Members who, for many years, pressed Her Majesty's Government to reintroduce a decommissioning scheme and I was delighted when that happened, albeit as part of a wider package. However, I still believe that £25 million is not sufficient, given the scale of the problem and the difficulty of meeting our multi-annual guidance programme.
My hon. Friend is right to chide the Opposition about where the money will come from and where the increase in the funding is to be found. I do not think that the Treasury will sanction an increase above £25 million. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the situation facing us, especially in the current public expenditure climate. However, I refuse to believe that, in the quite significant budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there is not some scope—I shall develop the point—for increasing the £25 million allocation. I am sure that some more money could be found in the budget of the Department.
The Government must find that extra money because of

the plight facing the industry. All of us who have fishing constituencies know the difficulties that fishermen face. I find that the most worrying aspect of the whole situation is when fishermen come to me and say, "David, we are being forced to cheat." They would not admit that before, but they are saying it now. To make a living, they are being forced to cheat through illegal landings and black fish. That is very worrying indeed and the fishermen do not like doing it.
I know of a number of people in my constituency who, because of the pressures that they are under and because of the particular pressure of having to cheat in order to survive, want to leave the industry. That is very sad. We must enable people who want to leave the industry to do so with honour and, indeed, with some financial recompense before the restrictions being imposed on them by Europe, and by our own Government for very good reasons, are implemented. Therefore, I earnestly urge my hon. Friend and other members of the Government to look again at the whole question of the adequacy—in my opinion, the inadequacy—of the allocation of £25 million and to bring about an increase.
I was very pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said about the topic of the day: the European Commission proposals—as he explained to the occupant of the Chair earlier, they are linked with the motion—which were publicised, probably in a truncated and, possibly, in an inaccurate form, last night and again this morning. Again, I welcome his words of caution that we should wait and see the details. I will certainly do that before passing final judgment, but I view what we already know of those proposals with hefty scepticism.
I opposed our unilateral days-at-sea restrictions and I shall also need much convincing over the European measures, for the central issue is the difficulty of enforcing such a system. We all know of the fears of the fishermen and their right to hold those fears. To put it succinctly, they fear that if such restrictions are ever introduced, they will be enforced on our fishermen, whereas the Spanish fishermen in particular, who are the biggest threat that we face in the south-west, will escape, because we all know that the enforcement of measures on fishermen in Spain is just a joke. We have seen it in all sorts of forms of so-called conservation measures. They are just not applied to the Spaniards, and they are not applied in any great degree, if I may say in passing, to many of the French fishermen either. That is, of course, the weakness of the common fisheries policy and I am afraid that it may be the weakness of the proposals from Europe.
However, I take comfort from my hon. Friend's comments on that matter and I know him well enough to know that he will be scrutinising the proposals with great care and that he will not go along with anything which is to the detriment of our own fishing fleet or which would treat our fleet unfairly.
I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I welcome what, as I said, I sense is a completely new approach by the Government and by my hon. Friend in particular. I urge him to listen with the greatest care, as he has done already, to the sensible measures being put forward by the industry. In proposing its alternative conservation measures—the technical measures to which my hon. Friend referred—the industry has made considerable advances. It has not gone for soft options, but has put forward measures which would


hurt the industry because it knows that a certain amount of pain is necessary to bring about that absolutely essential balance.
One thing is certain: if any conservation scheme is to succeed, it must have the acquiescence of the industry. The scheme must not have the total opposition of the industry. A scheme has a far better chance of succeeding if it has been put forward in outline form, at least, by the industry than if it is imposed on the industry. I welcome the whole tone of my hon. Friend's remarks and I hope that, indeed, the industry can look forward to a better and a more secure future in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I hope that I will not embarrass my near neighbour in Cornwall, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), by agreeing with so much of what he has said. I shall not reiterate the points, because we are obviously tied for time, but I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the repeal of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. There would be a real sea-change in the atmosphere in the industry if the Government showed that that Act is behind them and that they would be prepared to look again at the technical conservation measures.
The Minister rightly outlined the context of the scheme. He outlined the conservation shortfall in meeting multi-annual guidance programme targets, especially in the United Kingdom, though not exclusively so, the economic state of our industry compared with the fishing fleets in competitor countries in the European Union, the extent of support from other member states for the industry, which is extremely relevant in the context of not only decommissioning but the whole package of support, and the new developments overnight in Brussels, which we have heard about briefly and which are extremely relevant.
Finally, he rightly paid a great deal of attention, as did the hon. Member for St. Ives, to discrepancies in implementation, monitoring and control. We all know that the United Kingdom has one of the worst shortfalls in meeting targets, though other member states are in a similar position.
I was struck by the engaging honesty of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in his place, in the Scottish Grand Committee earlier this week. He said:
we reckon that the decommissioning scheme will take 2.2 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. over the three years, so it is not a very significant amount. If things go well, and depending on how the scheme works out in detail, it may be 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. That is of course a long way from our 19 per cent. target.
I suspect that that engaging honesty may be something to do with a Minister who is becoming somewhat demob happy. Later in the discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, he said:
Let me answer first the questions about fishing. I accept that it is not easy to determine at this stage how we can meet our multi-annual guidance programme targets…As I said, we might take out 2.5 per cent. or 3 per cent. a year and set the figure at 8 per cent. over three years. With the penalties on licensed transfers and aggregations, we hope to get to about 5 per cent. over the same period.
That is extraordinarily vague. It is honestly vague, but it does not alter the fact that we are a long way off the targets that the Government say that they are aiming for.
In the Committee, much play was made of the scale of investment in decommissioning, and how much was coming from the British taxpayer. As hon. Members have said, the decommissioning scheme amounts to £25 million gross over three years. It is calculated that 17.5 per cent. will be drawn down from Brussels under the arrangements to which the Minister has referred. So to some extent, that £25 million is bogus. It is further reduced by the tax take.
In the Standing Committee that considered the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) sought to exempt the payments from all tax penalties, but the penalties remain and the clawback in tax is considerable. The net figure for this scheme is probably only about £2 million a year. It is minuscule, I agree with what the hon. Member for St. Ives said about that.
In the Scottish Grand Committee on Tuesday the Minister admitted:
the money has been wrung from the Treasury after a great deal of pressure and I have been blunt with the fishing industry that there will be no likelihood of an extension of that £25 million in the current three-year period.—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 12 July 1994; c. 10–37.]
That does not explain why the money cannot be found from within MAFF's budget, notably from the budget for the days-at-sea provisions, which would have been considerable.
What is so significant about the Minister's confession is that it was the Treasury which designed the policy so that there was no assessment of the industry's actual needs. There was no equation in terms of conservation targets. There was no attempt to match up to the MAGP requirements. Most important, there was no overall value-for-money strategy. It is the mad axeman of the Treasury all over again.
The opposition to days-at-sea made it clear that, from Newlyn to Lerwick, fishermen have been, and continue to be, on the brink of economic collapse. Decommissioning in those circumstances can only be part of a larger package. Even if it were more generous, it would not be enough on its own. Decommissioning men, for example, involves huge social and economic costs in fragile economies all round our coastline, in Cornwall as in the north of Scotland. As the take-up shows, it is not sufficient in itself to achieve a dramatic reduction in the take.
Decommissioning by decrepitude in vessels is probably what the Government have in mind. It is more likely to happen than decommissioning by generous support. As I said earlier, the Minister was right to see the decommissioning package within the overall package that other member states make available to their fishing fleets. I take the example of Spain, for the obvious reason that in the south-west our fishermen find themselves in direct competition with Spanish fishermen.
For permanent decommissioning of vessels from 1987 to 1992, Spanish fishermen received 80.46 million ecu. That is discounting any cash that they received from their national Government. For temporary lay-up, they received 36.12 million ecu. In addition to that, for new vessel construction during that period, Spanish fishermen received 66.38 million ecu and for vessel modernisation they received 38.64 million ecu. That is a total of 220 million ecu from the European Union, or European Community as it then was; from the European taxpayers; from us. During that period, under only the vessel construction and modernisation programmes—because we did not have decommissioning—all that our industry


obtained in draw-down from the European Community was a paltry 15 million ecu. That is a critical part of the equation that the Minister must face. One cannot divorce the decommissioning sum from the rest of the programme.
Is it any wonder that our fishermen throughout the United Kingdom believe that their competitors benefit from huge subsidy, paid for as much by United Kingdom taxpayers as anyone else, to outfish us in our traditional waters with our money? It is worth noting that, during the same period, 72 new boats were given subsidy for construction in Spain, while only two achieved that in the United Kingdom.
I do not wish to refer at length to the proposals that we heard about overnight, but it is important to identify that the western approaches and Irish box proposals seem at least to put a question mark against some of the pledges that the Minister made early in the year.
The House will recall that the Minister gave us four pledges. The first was that the North sea would be excluded. As we understand it—so far, so good—it is. Secondly, relative stability would be a principle right across the policy. Much will depend on enforcement, but we hope that that is in place. Thirdly, no extra effort would be involved in the proposals. We have to hope that that will be so. Critically, the proposals that we have heard about overnight fly in the face of the fourth pledge that we were given about the integrity of the Irish box. As we understand it, it is to be substantially modified and reduced to reflect only area 7b. If that happens, it will be damaging to the interests of west country fishermen.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of building an edifice with no foundation. We have been cautioned that these are a first set of proposals. The regulation on which the measures draw defines clearly the Irish box as an area of particular sensitivity. One of the matters that we shall want to look at is just that proposal. The proposals are a first shot. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about negotiating within the Community, he will realise that there is still a great deal of discussion to go The reservations and fears of all fishermen whose waters are affected by the proposals, some of which he expresses clearly, will be fully taken into account.

Mr. Tyler: It is precisely because I understand the process of negotiation that I am strengthening the Minister's arm for the coming fight. I hope that he will go to the discussions with a reminder to his colleagues that hon. Members throughout the House intend to hold him to his pledges. We wish to see an Irish box that has the integrity that the Minister has given an undertaking to fight for. That brings me to the other point that I want to draw to the Minister's attention.
We understand that the new concept of standard vessels days, which looks very much like days-at-sea in a different guise, will be administered and monitored on a multi-national basis. For the reasons that the hon. Member for St. Ives gave, we do not believe that the proposal that has apparently come from the Commission that the scheme should be administered by the Government of member states would be anything like sufficient to ensure the right level of enforcement. Subsidiarity on this matter would cause acute anxiety among many other member states.
The crux of this debate and of the scheme is that for many of us, however welcome the decommissioning scheme is, it is but one block in the foundations of a

substantial strategy for the industry. It is not a strategy in itself. It will not meet even the immediate conservation targets. It will not secure long-term targets without even more vigorous MAGP requirements being set, perhaps in the comparatively near future. It will not offset the failure to invest structural funds—European funds, not merely British funds—in the modernisation of our fleet. It will not put the United Kingdom fleet on an even keel to meet new competition.
In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Minister said:
Currently we are moving towards our targets via decommissioning and licence penalties. We are also having discussions with the Commission on the possible contribution to effort reduction from technical conservation measures."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 280–81.]
Significantly, the Government are not having discussions with the industry on the substance of the proposals. That is regrettable.
The Minister referred in glowing terms to Fishing News, which we all read with great interest. I shall simply add an extra paragraph from its leader on the subject of the decommissioning scheme. It says:
The inescapable conclusion is that the government is bereft of ideas beyond that of squeezing large chunks of the Industry into bankruptcy, and that it hopes (knows perhaps?) that forthcoming EU measures will do its dirty work for it.
At present, there is no strategy for fishing. There is no strategy to meet the conservation targets. There are real fears of effort limitation by the back door. Whatever is the maritime equivalent of an uneven playing field is what we now have in the fishing industry, and we will suffer from it.

Mr. John D. Taylor: This is not the occasion for a wide-ranging speech on the fishing industry in the United Kingdom, so I shall make three brief points on behalf of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.
First, I welcome the measures proposed by the Minister. As he well knows, there was a good uptake in the first year of the decommissioning scheme in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland. I must quickly add that I fear that the uptake on this occasion will not be so good because, obviously, those who were in dire circumstances were keen to take advantage of the scheme in the first year, whereas there are no people in such dire circumstances now, so there is a serious possibility that less interest will be shown in it.
Secondly, there is a relaxed attitude in Portavogie and our other fishing ports in Northern Ireland about the arrangements for Spain and Portugal. The Minister will understand that. The fishermen in Northern Ireland do not have the anxiety that other fishermen in the United Kingdom will understandably have.
Thirdly, while we do not have the details of the news from Brussels tonight, none the less we have some information which one feels is accurate and which, if it is accurate, is most alarming for the United Kingdom fishing industry in the Irish sea. As I understand it, the Commission proposes that there should be a restriction within the Irish sea of 8,270 days at sea for the entire United Kingdom fishing fleet. In practical terms, that would mean that only about 80 United Kingdom fishing vessels will be allowed to fish in the Irish sea.
At present, we have 400 United Kingdom vessels in the Irish sea, 240 of which come from Northern Ireland. If the


proposal advances to a conclusion, the number of United Kingdom vessels will be reduced from 400 to only 80. That would be disastrous for Northern Ireland, where 2,000 people are employed in the fishing industry in the rural parts of County Down alone.

Mr. Jack: It is early days, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Commission has confirmed that its effort control proposals under the permit scheme and the arrangements to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded will not prevent quotas from being taken. We must examine the detail, but I think that that reassurance is important to fishermen, who are anxious to know whether they can prosecute the stocks to which they are entitled.

Mr. Taylor: I very much welcome that intervention. I shall conclude on this subject. As the Minister said, there is understandable anxiety about the reports which have come out in the first 24 hours. They must be clarified and explained—not that I like using the word "clarification" in Northern Irish politics these days.
Today's news has caused alarm and concern within the fleet based in Portavogie. The resentment—I ask the Minister to pay attention to this point—is made worse by the further news that, whereas the United Kingdom fleet in the Irish sea is being given only 8,270 days at sea, the southern Irish fleet is being given more than 11,000 days. That distortion in favour of the southern Irish fleet seems to arise from the exercise of the Hague preference based on cod quotas.
Effectively, the Republic of Ireland, with only 120 boats in the Irish sea, gets 11,000 days at sea, whereas the United Kingdom, with 400 vessels in the Irish sea, gets only 8,270 days. The fishermen do not understand that. I hope that the Minister will carry out his promise to meet the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Certainly, I will be keen to go with him, and hopefully support him, in getting the proposals amended in Brussels.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister gave his usual energetic and ebullient display—a characteristic for which he is becoming known in the industry—of making something out of nothing. The fact is that our fishing industry is in decline and severe financial difficulties, its market receipts are not at a level to keep it profitable, investment is being frightened away and the Minister is hanging all sorts of threats over it, such as Spanish accession and all the long-term possibilities of restriction of effort. That is the state of the industry on one side.
On the other side, frankly, the Government do not have a policy on fishing. The policy they had, to which they attached all the importance they could, has effectively been shot from under them, and they have not developed a new policy to replace it. It is desperately urgent that the Government develop a policy on fishing to give the industry the confidence it needs to sustain itself through to the better future which must lie ahead, despite the effective limitation of effort.
The problem is that the Government's policy was a twin track one. The first part of the policy was decommissioning—the scheme is part of that policy. However, it was too

little, too late. The scheme was not adequate, and it came in much too late. To reduce the effort, the decommissioning scheme was coupled with the days-at-sea limitation, on which the Government set their heart and to which they devoted all their efforts. That is the second half of the policy. Effectively, it has been shot from under them. They will not concede that the policy is dead. They want to hang on to a policy which cannot work. Even if the European Court rules in their favour, the policy cannot come in for well over a year—certainly not early enough to have any substantial effect on the effort.
As I told the Minister yesterday, the Government's days-at-sea policy is essentially necrophilia—the more dead it is, the more they love it. They must admit that it is a goner. It will not work. It should never have been introduced, because it is a monstrous measure—it is unfair and unreasonable. Only officials in their ivory towers apportioning catches as though they could deal with things in that sort of rational way could develop it. The Minister should not have introduced the policy, and he should now concede that it is dead.
When the Minister concedes that the policy is dead, it will become clear that the present decommissioning scheme is too small; it must be increased. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has suggested £40 million as a decommissioning scheme. I would put the figure higher. It is clear that the thinking behind the Commission's previous report is that we must have a bigger decommissioning scheme.
It is wrong for the Minister to quibble about where Labour would get the money to pay for the scheme. Most of the money comes from Europe in any case. If we recognise that the days-at-sea limitation, with all the attendant framework of regulation and supervision, is going, that would save about £6 million to £7 million—I do not know the exact figure. The Minister could take the first step by bringing forward all the decommissioning money in one splurge to put some money into the industry, because that is what it desperately needs.
Other European countries are in a much healthier position, vis-a-vis their multi-annual guidance programme targets, simply because they brought forward and implemented earlier bigger and better decommissioning schemes, coupled with rational restructuring of the industry.
Between 1987 and 1992, £250 million of European funds, to which we contributed, were spent by all the other countries on decommissioning their vessels. That is why they are in a much better position than we are. That is why we must go down the road they have shown us, which the Minister, or his predecessors in the Department, should have taken some years ago.
Now, we have been forced down it and the Minister should say, "I'm sorry, we got it wrong. We tried the twin-track approach. One track won't work and we must therefore place more emphasis on the decommissioning scheme." As the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) suggested, the Minister should drop the policy. He should withdraw it. Let us have a reconciliation with the industry, which will be adamantly opposed to it, even if the policy ever comes back.
The Government should introduce a decommissioning scheme. They should couple it with a restructuring plan to bring finance for new building into the industry. We have an aging fleet. Some vessels are 25 or 30 years old and the


industry desperately needs new vessels, as does the construction side of the industry, which will be decimated if the present lack of building continues.
The Minister should stop the slump—stop foreign flag ships buying licences and their use by other nations. He should show some confidence in the industry, so that it can get other outside finance. The Minister should recognise that there must be new build, which need not necessarily increase the effort as it can be carefully structured so as to ensure that it does not do so. He should couple that with a proper decommissioning scheme.
The Minister should go ahead with the technical conservation measures suggested to him by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. There was some good cheer yesterday. He said that he accepted those recommendations, which cheered me up, and that he was putting them to the Commission, which is very good. It is a learning process, and I hope that it will continue, as it is so welcome. We must approach the conservation of stocks through such effective technical measures, as it is much the best way to do so.
If the Minister does all those things, will we be able to reduce effort on the scale that is necessary? We need a 19 per cent. reduction. With decommissioning, we have so far achieved 2.2 per cent. If we spend all the money, it will probably result in a 6 per cent. reduction in effort. What will the conservation measures achieve—a 3 or 4 per cent. reduction? Perhaps the Minister can give us an estimate. Decommissioning and conservation will together add up to a 10 per cent. reduction in effort, which leaves 9 per cent. of the reduction that we must achieve by December 1996 outstanding. That is a 9 per cent. gap—half the reduction.
I fear that the Government are placing their hopes on a Europewide reduction of effort through a limitation on days at sea. Perhaps I have too suspicious a mind, but Ministers could be thinking that there will be such a limitation and that it will save their bacon. That will save them from having to introduce an unpopular measure. They might think,"We'll get away with reducing effort in that way."
The proposals for the alternative for the Irish box seem to envisage some limitation on days at sea on that basis, which is what makes me think that those proposals might be the thin end of the wedge for a European scheme. If that is the Minister's view, I hope that he will come clean.
A European limitation of effort will hit this country disproportionately hard. Our deficit is greater than that of the other fishing nations. If the European Community, rather than the Government, introduce such a scheme, it will bear most heavily on this country. Secondly, a Europewide limitation on days at sea will reduce British effort to allow Spanish effort in. We shall all be making some sacrifices as a consequence of the decision to allow the Spanish full accession to the common fisheries policy five years early.
As we have heard in every speech in this debate, hon. Members do not trust the regimes in other European countries to administer restrictions. There is a difficulty in Spain, because of the problem of Basque separatism. The Spanish central Government dare not bear down too heavily on the regional administration, which is financing much reconstruction.

Mrs. Ewing: That is good coming from Grimsby.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady would like a similar regime in Scotland. Everyone knows that the Spanish are not going to enforce what is necessary on the Basques.
A European days-at-sea limitation will not work, and it will not save the Minister's bacon. He has to do something. He must produce a British national policy along the lines I have suggested. He was wrong to mutter as he did in his speech that, unless the industry behaves responsibly, the Government will have to return to limitation of effort.
Having been defeated on his original policy, it is his responsibility to go back to the industry and say, "We want to work out a national plan for fishing with you." He should tell the industry that the Government want to develop a new industry, which can inherit the future, and that they want to work together to restructure the industry to ensure its survival as an effective, efficient and well-organised fishing force.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I must, of necessity, be extremely brief, so I shall not rehearse some of the arguments that I mentioned in interventions on the Minister.
The fishing industry is a critical industry in Scotland in particular, and it is important in my constituency. Debates on the fishing industry seem, however, consistently to be downgraded. I do not mean any criticism of the important statement that had to be made earlier today. Obviously, defence is also a major issue in my constituency and in Scotland.
There is a feeling, however, that we debate the fishing industry either late at night or in short debates. The Government must study our mechanisms for considering the issue, especially since the common fisheries policy is of great importance as we look forward from the Maastricht developments to the accession of four additional states, although not all of those will be fishing nations.
We are working in a policy vacuum. The Minister mentioned the vagueness of the present proposals, said that we are moving forward to a Fisheries Council, said that he would then report back, and so forth. That leaves the industry in a state of uncertainty.
If we are to consider the framework regulations that the Commission is developing in Brussels, we need clear Government guidance on how they will relate those regulations back to the industry and to its representatives in this House—Members with maritime constituencies—and how they will ensure that clear guidance is given on how any agreement reached will be monitored, controlled and honoured.
The key issue and centrepiece of the whole debate is a policy on fishing effort. Decommissioning is a part of that policy. Spanish accession, the North sea, the Irish box and the maintenance of relative stability are all fundamentally important to this great industry, which we all respect so much.
If we achieve a level fishing playing field within the European Union for all our fishing communities—perhaps that is not the correct analogy when we are talking about fishing—I want clear guidance from the Minister on how the Government will ensure that such agreements are monitored, controlled and honoured exactly.
For fishermen in my constituency, one of the most important issues is that they feel that they are not on a level playing field. Can we have some more details? I know that


the Minister wants to jump to the Dispatch Box, but perhaps, in light of the time available, he will cover that question in his closing speech or in a letter.
On the recommendations made by people in the British industry, there are differences between the Scottish and British industries. Can I have clarification of whether the Scottish Office is considering the serious recommendations, relating to square mesh panels, made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation? The recommendations being made by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations are not compatible with the species which are caught in the North sea.
The PESCA scheme is very important, because at the moment there is no guarantee that crewmen will have any share in the decommissioning, and it is often dependent on the owner's attitude. Will the Government ensure that any pressure which comes to bear on the PESCA funds ensures that our crewmen will be treated the same as crewmen elsewhere within the European Union, because it seems that every other member state is pushing in that direction?
Is there any way in which Ministers can reduce the bureaucracy which fishermen have to face? It seems that, every time they turn around, there are more and more regulations and forms to fill in. That is a part of the irritation which is felt towards the common fisheries policy and towards the Government's regulations. May we have some guidance on how that can be reduced?

Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that we in the fishing industry suffer from the law of diminishing returns. The more we shout that we need more time for a debate on the industry, the less time we get. I do not want to waste time on that, as fortunately the industry is not in an absolutely immediate crisis.
We welcome the scheme so far as it goes. The fact that we have argued that it is not enough and that we are 50 per cent. under the multi-annual guidance programme target is not a matter of mathematical certainties or equations. The longer that we do not meet the target, and there is no obvious way of making the target, the more likely it is as we approach 1996 that even greater effort limitation will be forced upon us. Prices will become more severe, and we do not know how that will be met.
In view of the time, I shall be extremely brief. The Minister said that the Government will be monitoring the fleet's fishing effort and that it would not be done with a heavy hand. But the opposite of a heavy hand is not necessarily a light touch. We need a clear explanation as to how that monitoring will take place. A balance must be struck between the bureaucratic rules and proper effective monitoring. The Minister must try to strike that balance.
I want to emphasise, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) did, the importance of the PESCA scheme and of looking at compensation for crewmen who have lost their jobs. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Employment which is currently running a voluntary scheme for trawlermen who have lost their jobs?
The Department says that someone can qualify for compensation only if he has had two years' continuous employment with the same employer. In Aberdeen in particular—I know that similar things happened elsewhere

in the country—all trawlermen were employed by the Aberdeen Fish Vessel Association, and one could not get a job unless one was registered. The association told the crewmen on which boats to sail. If they transgressed, there were subsequent disciplinary proceedings which were jointly operated by the owners and the trade unions.
The Department of Employment is saying that that association is now an agency and, since it is an agency, the men do not qualify. In going for the PESCA scheme, and after having a word with the Department of Employment, the Minister should not be too rigid. These people have had their livelihoods taken away and there is no prospect that they will be restored. I ask the Minister to please go for the PESCA scheme and to look at the way in which the rules are applied. He must ensure that the Government apply compassion and flexibility because that is necessary for people who have served the industry well.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I pointed out earlier, if effort limitation is to be effective as a conservation tool, the fleet must be in some kind of rough balance with the sustainability of stocks. To believe that effort limitation, even when it is based on a permanent system, equals capacity reduction—this is the point that I made to Minister, who claimed that I had my terms mixed up—flies in the face of history and experience.
Applying effort restrictions while the fleet is well over capacity will lead inevitably to hardship and, in many cases, to bankruptcy. That is the fact of the matter, especially where I come from where we have an aging fleet. The communities, as the Minister well knows, are utterly dependent upon the fishing industry, and the industry is part and parcel of the culture of the communities.
Effort restrictions do nothing to produce an efficient and well-balanced United Kingdom fishing fleet, and the Minister must face up to that. In my view, we need an effective and larger decommissioning scheme to achieve that rough balance, but I think that we are a long way from that.
I have mentioned the multi-annual guidance programme criteria that the Minister used, and those relate to a reduction in the fleet's tonnage and its horsepower. I believe that the European Community is attempting to arrive at a scheme by which we can measure fishing capacity. That is an enormously difficult task, but, in the long run, it is better than the crude criteria which underpin the MAGP.
The decommissioning scheme must allow for the renewal and reinvigorating of aging fleets. Many of the fleets from the Western isles and from some of the fishing communities near where I live, such as Campbeltown, Tarbert and Greenock, have very old boats. The fleets need to be replenished and the scheme must allow for the rebuilding of the fleets.
I have been given strict instructions to sit down at a specific moment, and I sometimes obey orders; not always, but sometimes.
We must look at the people who crew the vessels. Fishing, as the Minister has said on a number of occasions, is the toughest and harshest occupation in the United Kingdom. It is much too tough an occupation for me. I tried it as a kid of 15 and I happily acknowledge that it


needed only one north Atlantic gale to put me ashore for ever. I have been to sea since, but I am always glad that it is not my occupation.
I have brothers who work on trawlers so perhaps I should declare an interest. It is important that the crewmen are protected along with the skipper-owners of fishing vessels. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and my hon. and old Friend for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—[Interruption.] These men, their families and their communities must be protected. It seems to me that representing a maritime constituency—[Interruption.] I could do without this heckling from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My apologies.

Dr. Godman: I represent a maritime constituency which has been helped to some extent by European Community structural funds to aid those areas suffering because of declining industries. For example, the Renaval programme assisted constituencies such as mine which have suffered from the decline in the shipbuilding industry. Why should not there be a similar scheme for fishing communities?
Why should not there be a scheme which allows for compensation to be paid to the men who crew the vessels? That should be a part of the European Union scheme for giving protection to those communities. In many of those scattered communities, such as Portavadie—or even Grimsby—and some of the other communities which my colleagues and I represent north of the border, there are very few alternatives for those men who have been put ashore, perhaps permanently. The men must be looked after and the scheme must allow for refreshing the fleet. An aging fleet is no good to anyone as it presents additional safety hazards to the men who crew the vessels. The decommissioning scheme must not obstruct the renewing of those fleets.

Mr. John McFall: May I sum up the debate briefly and pick up a few points that hon. Members have made?
In an intervention in the Minister's speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked for an assurance that the Spaniards would not gain access to precious and non-precious stocks in the North sea. Will the Minister deal with that matter when he winds up?
In his speech, the Minister said that, if necessary, the Government would take measures to monitor the fishing effort of the remaining fleet after decommissioning. Given that they wish to restrict the efforts of the remaining fleet, how will they go about that with no days-at-sea scheme?
On the question of how we shall meet the shortfall of what the present decommissioning scheme takes out, the Minister spoke about capacity, aggregation and conservation measures. But how does he propose to fill that gap? In the Scottish Grand Committee the other day, the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), said that over the next three years the scheme would take out 2.2 to 2.5 per cent. and that, on a good day—when have the Government had a good day in the past few years?—it would take out 8 per cent. That still leaves 11 per cent. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, the Government are being extraordinarily vague. That point must be clarified.
The Government keep mentioning £25 million. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Minister was pressed on that matter and I said that the Government would recover approximately £17.5 million from Brussels, leaving a net bill for the Exchequer of £7.5 million. That amount will be further reduced by the taxation paid by fishermen in the form of decommissioning grants. Ultimately, therefore, the total sum could be £5 million, which is small beer by any means and shows that the Government are not considering the matter seriously. More resources are definitely needed.
The Minister mentioned the Commission. At what stage are the Government's discussions with the Commission about substituting conservation measures for days at sea? The industry feels that the Government are getting nowhere with that issue and that the Minister hopes that this scheme will fill in part of the multi-annual guidance programme gap. If that is true, the Government's argument does not hold because, to date, the Commission has not said that it will accept conservation measures as part of effort reduction. How, then, will the Government make up the shortfall in effort reduction? Will it be made up by extra restrictions on the United Kingdom fleet? Is that the Government's secret agenda? Do they want the Commission to do their dirty work so that they do not get their hands dirty?
The days-at-sea measure is currently being examined in court. If I may draw an analogy, the Government have just one golf club—one policy—on this matter. While the court case prevails, they should discuss a range of measures with the industry and decide how to proceed. It will be another year before we know the outcome of the court case, so it is inadequate for the Government to have no alternative strategy in the meantime. One can only conclude that their policy is to let the British fleet fade away while our modernised rivals wait over the horizon to take up the fishing opportunities which the Government, because they lack a decommissioning policy, are in danger of denying our fishermen.
It is also inadequate for the Government to wait for the Commission to rescue them. They spout anti-European rhetoric, yet they wait for the European Community to rescue them. They should be up front with the industry and discuss a range of measures to show that they are concerned about the matter. That is the least that they should offer while we accept the measure on offer tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that it is sad that we do not have more time to debate fishing. All hon. Members have had to curtail their speeches, as I will in summing up the debate. However, I shall try to answer a number of points that were raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) for welcoming unreservedly our decommissioning proposals. They are a valuable step forward and I am glad that we are continuing the decommissioning scheme for this year and next. At least it is clear to fishermen that there are two decommissioning tranches to apply for. Given the number of applications for the last scheme, which will finish in April, I have every confidence that there will be a number of applications and that those will be distributed fairly throughout the country, as they were last time. Each


area has a fair amount of decommissioning. It is unfortunate that fishermen must destroy boats but that step is definitely necessary because, all too frequently in the past, if boats were not destroyed they somehow worked their way back into the fishing fleet.
Throughout the debate Opposition Members have uttered their usual cry that the Government are not doing enough and have implied that they would spend their way out of the problem. No one was more emphatic about that than the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said, "£40 million? No, higher still. Spend, spend, spend." If Governments took that attitude whenever a problem arose and simply bought their way out, it would result in higher inflation, higher interest rates and, inevitably, higher unemployment. One must look at the overall picture before demanding huge sums of money from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was kicking to touch when he was challenged about the total to which he has committed the Labour party, but I shall not push him on that as I am sure that it was slightly tongue in cheek.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about the PESCA scheme. We are anxious to proceed with that scheme and I shall take up the point that he raised with the Department of Employment. If a misunderstanding or failure has occurred within the agency for training, we shall endeavour to help and improve the situation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke of the uncertainty that has been thrown into the pool by the Commission's announcement today. We were all surprised that it was made today. We have officials discussing the matter in Brussels and shall make an announcement as

soon as we can. However, it is wrong to create fears and despondency before the matter has even been discussed and before we have consulted the industry. Fisheries Councils will take place in September and November, when the matter is likely to be discussed in detail. It is wrong to think that a decision has been taken today in Europe; it has not. They are simply proposals that we must consider in much greater detail.
We have continuing discussions with the fishing industry. I am glad to have such discussions as often as possible with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The constructive views of the federation are extremely valuable when we have discussions in Europe. Its representatives and those of its English counterparts usually attend the meetings and we are able to speak to them while discussions are going on in the chamber.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) read what I had to say in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday. Perhaps my addition was not very obvious to him, but 2.2 per cent. a year for three years is not far away from about 7 per cent., plus the percentage that we hope to obtain from licensing. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it is very approximate, because it is the closest that we can get. One does not know how many boats will come forward this year for decommissioning. One cannot possibly tell to within half a per cent. the amount that we shall be able to take out of effort this year until we have—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 July]

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1568), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

7 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 38, after 'areas"', insert
', subject to any order under section 31 (Alteration on limits of jurisdiction) of this Act,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 31, page 11, line 21, leave out 'limits of jurisdiction', and insert
'designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act,'.
No. 4, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'area' to end of line 29.
No. 5, in page 11, leave out lines 30 and 31.
No. 6, in clause 34, page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (7).
No. 7, in page 12, line 40, after 'section', insert '31 or'.

Mr. Spearing: May I, as a preliminary, seek guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Since the grouping was put together earlier this week, certain events have happened which I hope to describe. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible, if necessary—I hope that it will not be necessary—to have a vote on amendment No. 4 and perhaps on amendment No. 6. I very much hope that the reply which the promoter will be able to provide will not provoke that, but it is a point which I would wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset, which is the proper time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: Thank you very much.
The Bill has had a long and complex path through the other place and this House. There was a two-and-a-half-hour debate in March, when the Members of Parliament for docklands constituencies gave the Bill a cautious welcome, heavily hedged with qualifications, before it went to the Unopposed Bill Committee upstairs.
One of the main objections of docklands Members of Parliament was that the Bill was being promoted by a public body, in effect wholly controlled by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which was due to disappear in two or three years' time. Upstairs in Committee, we obtained an amendment by the Unopposed Bill Committee that where the area of designation in this area for byelaws under the Act was to pass from the London Docklands development corporation to other organisations, unspecified—private or public, perhaps as yet unfounded, and perhaps the proposed royal docks management authority in the case of my constituency—it would need a parliamentary affirmative resolution before the power to make byelaws passed from the LDDC. Happily, that was achieved.
However, docklands Members of Parliament were worried about other matters, both procedural—in terms of power and law-making powers—and in terms of substance: Those have been grouped in the selection which you have

made, Mr. Deputy Speaker—amendment No. 1, and amendments Nos. 3 to 7. If it would be convenient for the House, as they are grouped together, I think that I had better discuss all the matters as they arise. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will be able to reply to the group en bloc.
Amendment No. 1 relates to clause 31. Clause 31 gives power for the Secretary of State, by an order which does not have to come before the House—in the jargon of our House, a negative order, which means that it does not have to come to approval but it can be disapproved of, if necessary, by motion—to change the areas for which byelaws can be made.
The first query that we had about that clause—rather late in the day, but that is what parliamentary scrutiny is about—is that it was entitled,
Alteration of limits of jurisdiction".
That is ambiguous, because anyone reading it might think that it was the jurisdiction of the LDDC over its own statutory area. That was the first reading of many people, including some people well versed in reading law.
However, the area with which we are concerned in the power to make byelaws is not the area of jurisdiction. In practice, it is the area which in the definitions clause is called "the designated areas". I was shown those on a map, which is upstairs in the Private Bill Office, and no doubt also in one or two places in docklands. I thought that that was not very clear, and that it might be the subject of court action later. That is what we are here for. This is not a Government Bill: it was initially drawn up by people outside the Government.
I drew that matter to the attention of the LDDC and its advisers—admittedly, late in the day—and they took the point at once. They said, "Yes, of course it does not mean the only jurisdiction; it means the designated area, and we shall change it." At their suggestion—indeed, in their wording—amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were tabled, which make it absolutely clear. I am happy to start on that note of happy accord. Let us hope that it continues.
I have not read out the amendments, but no doubt Hansard has got it all down because I am speaking to those amendments.
Having got off to that good start—I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will probably agree because there has been some conversation about that matter—I shall discuss a rather more difficult matter, relating to amendment No. 4. It relates—I had better read it—to a rather controversial part of section 31, which defines the areas of land which, in the future, the Secretary of State can expand or expunge. The one to which I take special objection—I think that that is not too strong a word—reads as follows. I shall summarise section 31(2).
The Secretary of State may by order made under this section alter the limits of jurisdiction so as to—
and in (a) there is a description of any land in Newham, Southwark or Tower Hamlets, which is situated within or adjacent to the development area, and then:
(2)(a)(ii) adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the…development area, is adjacent to any land for the time being comprised in the designated areas".
That is a lot of jargon, but constituency Members of Parliament will be affected. I confess that during the months that the legislation has been in both Houses I did not look at it sufficiently closely. It says, in ordinary east London English, that, on the designated map, or in schedule 1 to the Bill, which sets out the dock areas, which,


in words, are the designated areas for which byelaws can be made, those areas do not have to be inside the area of the LDDC.
The area of the LDDC is on the map. It was in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It was the area in which the LDDC had tremendous powers over all the boroughs—planning powers, money powers, you name it. Some of the officials there and some of the chairmen and some of the board were quite nice. Anyway, they have been appointed by the Secretary of State.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) in the Chamber. He has spent many hours as leader of Newham council in discussions with those powerful, albeit very polite, people. However, we are discussing an Act of Parliament which invites us tonight to authorise, not simply the LDDC, which is to some extent accountable to the Secretary of State, but any of its successors—heaven knows who they will be, to expand the area in which they can make byelaws to outside the existing LDDC.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said when discussing it with me earlier this week, that area will include the whole of Newham. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would say, as would Ministers in Committee, that the hon. Gentleman's imagination was running away with him, and that no Secretary of State would ever do such a thing. That does not matter—the law would permit him to do it.
Is it good law? I am not sure whether it would be good law even if it were introduced by a Government, even one that I might support. It is certainly not a good law when it is introduced by an organisation that is to disappear in two years' time and is a creature of the Secretary of State. Moreover, if those powers are transferred to someone else, he or she will be able to take that action.
It is ironic that that extension of authority was discovered only by chance. There is only one region in the so-called designated areas that is outside the LDDC. It is a bottle-shaped dock, which is not on the Thames and is not part of the Port of London authority group. It is on the River Lea in Bromley-by-Bow gasworks. It is perhaps a good thing that coal is not used for gas now, but when the gasworks operated barges used to come up and take away tar. It is sometimes known as the balancing lagoon—I do not know why—or Bromley dock, although it happens to be in Newham. It is a useful dock and would make a lovely little marina. Some people from the Mayflower centre, Canning Town, built a good boat there of concrete and metal—a useful thing for east Londoners to do. It is not used at present.
On one side of the dock is the Cody road industrial area which the LDDC has developed. It has provided employment, which has helped to make up for the enormous job losses elsewhere. On the other side of the dock is the gas board—Bromley-by-Bow, huge gasometers, warehouses and maintenance areas.
Earlier this week I received a telephone call. The caller asked, "Mr. Spearing, do you realise that there will be 200 redundancies in your constituency from the Bromley-by-Bow works?" I said that I did not understand. The caller said that the gas board was thinning out its staff and might go. I am not saying that it will be sold—it involves acres of land—but perhaps it will be. After the telephone call I

thought to myself that the subject was covered in the Bill. I must confess that, but for that timely warning, I would not be making this speech.
Is it right that an area of land that is outside the LDDC area can not only be subjected to byelaws, albeit in the public interest, but can be enlarged? Byelaws can be made by an unspecified person or organisation at an unspecified time in future, by a stroke of the Secretary of State's pen—someone in whom I might otherwise have confidence. I do not think that that is right, which is why I have tabled amendment No. 4. I originally tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. Amendment No. 4 suggests that subsection (2)(a)(ii) of clause 31 should be deleted.
Subsection (2)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to
remove from the designated areas any land for the time being comprised in those areas.
I do not like that because, although it is unlikely to happen, it can be done by the Secretary of State at the stroke of a pen. The royal docks contain much important land in the designated area. In amendment No. 6 I suggest that the matter should be subject to an affirmative resolution of the House.
7.15 pm
The Committee required the LDDC and, in effect, the Government to ensure that, if the power were transferred to someone else, that would require an affirmative resolution. I am saying that the powers to change or extend the area of designation should also be subject to an affirmative resolution. In other parts of the country with byelaws relating to parks, commons and national parks, that might not be necessary, but we are talking about east London—an urban area—where water facilities are important. They are lungs; they provide areas of potential recreation and commercial development may not be fully in the public interest.
The power to make byelaws works in two ways. It can promote the public interest in terms of access, recreation and use of the water for different activities or it can be collared for other purposes. That is why it is important to protect the land, which was originally in public ownership—most of it under the Port of London Authority. It would be appropriate for the promoters of the Bill to agree that that measure should also be subject to an affirmative resolution. Future problems that may arise could be massive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) may wish to talk about the West India docks, which contain Canary wharf. The Royal docks contain 250 acres of water and 1,000 acres of land. The area is almost as big as the combined areas of Hyde park and Kensington gardens. There are two miles of clear water from the west end of the Victoria dock, through the Connaught cutting. The Royal Albert dock is about one mile long and is used for six-lane rowing. It would be possible to turn it into an olympic rowing course, although it would cost a bit of money.
The Victoria dock is one of the finest stretches of open water in London—comparable to or even bigger than the Welsh Harp. It is an area where young people from Newham and Tower Hamlets sail, sailboard, row and learn. It was originally launched by the London borough of Newham and is now held in trust as the Victoria dock project. Next door to the Victoria dock, people surfboard, which is an important activity. I did not know until last


week that the gentleman who runs the activity, Mr. Chilvers, was responsible for introducing surfboarding. He even holds some patents for it.
In east London we have a gentleman and his enterprise who were in at the beginning of an extremely important worldwide sport. Yet, horrible as it may seem—I do not want to introduce a negative tone, but I must put it on record—there is planning permission for the north side of Victoria dock which would extend the land 20 or 30 yd into the dock itself. The plans of the LDDC contain the possibility of a bridge. I have suggested that a chain ferry might be better because otherwise the magnificent marine resource might be jeopardised. I have no qualms about putting to Londoners and to the House the importance of the marine tradition of London—and I am talking about an area that represents just that. It is an area of heritage, with a dockland museum; ships may sail into it from outside—all will be subject to the byelaws.
A so-called urban village is to be built on the side of the dock. I understand that next week the LDDC will decide on the contractors. I shall not go too deeply into the merits of that project as it would not be right, but the area lies on the border of the designated areas and the remit of the byelaws. Only a quarter of the village is designated for the construction of reasonably priced houses to rent. That replicates the mistakes that some of us believe were made previously along the river to the west. It has also been rightly said that the place is in any case more urban than village-like.
The point is that, unless the amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of State in his Whitehall office will be able to alter byelaws in the area without getting them approved by an affirmative resolution of this House. That is why I think it necessary to secure the future of the area.
Last Friday some far-sighted local business men—this should appeal to the Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—headed by a Mr. Bulgin arid his firm in Barking put some money into the kitty for a new sort of flexible rowing craft. It has many uses—camping, cruising, training, and so on—and it is to be known as the Buccaneer Cutter. There may be more to come. Given a fair wind in the media, people will cry, "Hurrah! Why wasn't this done before?" The Victoria dock project, under way within the designated area, is living a hand-to-mouth existence at the moment—containers, prefabricated buildings and all sorts of bits and pieces. No one knows what lies in store for the area.
That part of London and these powers are far too important to be left to Whitehall, even in the hands of good Secretaries of State, who usually find themselves harassed by all sorts of other matters. The powers should be subject to approval in this House; if they are good powers, they will probably go through on the nod. I am asking for the sort of safeguards that citizens look to Parliament to provide them with. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will agree.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad that I managed to anticipate most of the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We have enjoyed a helpful dialogue on the amendments in question. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, two of them were proposed to him, to meet his concerns, by the Bill's promoters. To be honest, they were negotiated between us.
I had never promoted a private Bill before this one, and this has seen us engaged in a process of law making in the

raw. This is not about making inflated speeches: it is all about looking at the dots and commas to find out what the Bill means. I hope that I shall be able to meet the concerns that the hon. Gentleman quite properly expressed.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were, as I have just explained, actually drafted by the promoters. The hon. Member for Newham, South wants to be sure that anyone reading the Bill will be able to distinguish between the area of jurisdiction of the development corporation and any successor body and the area in which the corporation or its successor can make byelaws. In theory at least, and perhaps in practice, there is a difference. For instance, the development corporation's area may include parts of three boroughs—but it might want to make byelaws in only two of them.
The problem that the hon. Gentleman has spotted is that phrases like "limits of jurisdiction" are not abundantly clear. Do they refer to the limits of jurisdiction of the development corporation, with all its powers, including as the planning authority, or to the limits of jurisdiction for the purposes of this Bill, which is all about making byelaws?
Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 clarify the position. Amendment No. 3 removes the phrase "limits of jurisdiction" and replaces it with
designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act".
Clause 2 says that "the designated areas" mean
the harbours or former harbours, docks or former docks, waterways and other lands described in Schedule 1 to this Act, together with the jetties, all of which are designated by and situated within the limits of jurisdiction, but does not include the waters lying beneath Rotherhithe Street bridge in the London borough of Southwark".
On behalf of the promoters, I accept the amendment, and I hope that the House will do likewise. In effect, the hon. Member for Newham, South has made certain that when, in respect of clause 31, we talk about the alteration of limits of jurisdiction, we are clearly describing alterations in the limits of the designated areas. I agree with the view of the hon. Gentleman, which I strongly expressed to the parliamentary agents—that the sooner the world of parliamentary drafting can get away from all those cross-references and say what it means in plain language, instead of sending us around a Bill for definitions, the better. Certainly, I did not manage to achieve such a revolution in the course of negotiating those amendments.
Amendment No. 1 would add the words
subject to any order under section 31 (Alteration of limits of jurisdiction) of this Act
after the word "areas". Anyone wanting to find out where the designated areas are should be aware that, once the Bill is enacted, they may have been altered because clause 31 provides the power to alter them.
I hope that I can now help the hon. Gentleman with his exploration of those extended powers. I can quite understand his anxiety on looking at the map in the course of his research and discovering that an area falling outside the confines of the development corporation was to be included in the remit of byelaw-making powers which the Bill will give the development corporation and its successors.
Clause 2 lists the types of land covered by designated areas, and refers us to schedule 1 for a complete description of all the places to be included. There is a sting in the tail of this explanation, but first I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 14 of the Bill. Schedule 1 lists in full the extent of the


areas covered by the phrase "designated areas". Some of them are in his constituency, others are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), I suppose that some of them are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and some are in my constituency. There are 13 groups in all. For the record, I shall read them out so that people who read the debate will know exactly what we are talking about: Hermitage basin, Western dock canal system, Shadwell basin—including Brussels wharf—Surrey Water, Thames Link, Albion canal, Albion dry dock and Canada Water, Greenland dock, Steelyard cut and South dock—both south of the river; the next ones are north of it—West India north branch dock, West India centre branch dock and West India south dock, Blackwall basin and Poplar dock, Millwall inner dock, Millwall outer dock and Millwall cutting, East India dock basin, Royal Victoria dock and Royal Victoria pontoon dock, Royal Albert dock, King George V dock and Albert basin.
The perceptive reader, including the hon. Member for Newham, South, will notice that the piece of water to which he referred does not appear in that list. That is a mistake, but happily not one that need thwart the hon. Gentleman's objective. I was relieved to learn that, because otherwise the Bill would have required redrafting, and that could not be done tonight. The list should have included the Cody road balancing lagoon—the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred—because uniquely in the territory in question, that land is owned by the LDDC but is outside its boundaries. That is the dichotomy. There is LDDC land within which there are byelaw-making powers, but there is extra-territorial LDDC land in the form of the lagoon that should be in the designated area and in the schedule. As it was not included in the schedule, I asked those who advise the promoter what should be done. They advised that if something is not in the schedule but is on the map Upstairs, that map takes precedence—and the lagoon is on the map. Therefore, even if in future days people do not find Cody road balancing lagoon in the schedule, they will find it on the map.
7.30 pm
The authority for stating that it will be covered by the Bill is clause 3(1), which defines the extent of the measure:
The limits within which the Corporation shall have and may exercise the functions conferred on it by this Act"—
and we are only talking about byelaw-making functions—
and within which the powers of the manager may be exercised, shall comprise the designated areas.
That clause confronts the fact that a mistake may be made one day by stating in subsection (2):
If there be any discrepancy between the deposited map and the descriptions in Schedules I and 2 to this Act, the deposited map shall prevail but, for the avoidance of doubt, the designated areas do not extend to any part of the bed of the river Thames below the level of mean high water from time to time".
Where there is a conflict, the deposited map prevails.
It is not intended that a universal power for making byelaws should be given to the docklands corporation or to any successor authority. Having examined this as a lawyer, I accept that the powers are limited to the areas set out in the list in the schedule or shown on the map—and that, where there is a discrepancy, the map takes precedence. The powers cannot therefore be exercised in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Newham,

North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because they are not in the schedule or on the designated map—with the exception of the balancing lagoon to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Spearing: The gas board owns many acres of land north of Cody road basin, right up to the District and Tilbury line railways. By virtue of the pressures of statute, the gas board may wish to dispose of that large area of land in the not-too-distant future. Bearing in mind that the western side is on the banks of the River Lea, is it not likely that someone may apply to the Secretary of State in future to include large parts of that land, particularly that adjacent to the water, in the byelaw area? That may be a good thing. Is that not possible?

Mr. Hughes: That is possible, but I will deal first with the agreed amendments and then with the other amendments. We do not agree that those others are necessary, but they raise the issue of whether there ought to be the power change that relates to extending or reducing the Bill's jurisdiction.
I have not visited the Cody road area, but I understand that it is a short distance to the north of the urban development area but still within the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is situated at the Cody road industrial estate and just off the banks of Bow creek, which is part of the River Lea. It is owned and operated by the British Waterways Board, and was built to serve the existing adjacent coal-fired gas power station. It is quite a large area of water—more than 500 ft long by 100 ft wide, and 20 ft deep. It is called a balancing lagoon because, like gasometers, its level goes up and down. Sometimes there is no water in it and sometimes there is.
There is no public access on two sides of the lagoon because the land owned by the development corporation is fenced, and another side has a British Gas boundary fence. However, it can be reached from the creek. The logic of including it is that the Bill is about being able to regulate by byelaw, and particularly to make the dock safe for the public. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the difference between now and when the byelaws were last altered is that they then served the purposes of the Port of London Authority, when the docks were used for commercial purposes. Today, sadly in many ways but realistically, they are used for different purposes and the public have extensive access. Among the purposes of the Bill is to prevent, for example, children falling into the water. One reason that the promoter is keen, and the House should be keen, to complete the Bill tonight is so that it can be on the statute book for the summer, when the prospective danger of docklands waters not being regulated is at its greatest.
The lagoon is included in the Bill because it is a large area of water which the public can access from the creek, and which could be dangerous—particularly because there is operational equipment at the mouth of the lagoon. Also, given that the Bill intended to include all areas of water owned by the docklands corporation, it would have been illogical not to include it—even though, territorially, it was outside the LDDC's boundaries.
The corporation has no intention of using its powers to extend the designated areas in the vicinity of the lagoon. It is prepared to give undertakings—at this stage, that would best be done in writing—to that effect. In any event, such a proposal would also have to be justified and would be


subject to resolutions in the House. As the hon. Member for Newham, South pointed out, where there is a designated area—the lagoon is one—the LDDC could come along and say, in relation to land next to it, "We want to take byelaw-making powers." As he also rightly pointed out, a successor could have the same motivation and intention. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the LDDC specifically states that it has no intention of extending the areas—and it would have to return to the House if it wanted to do so.

Ms Mildred Gordon: I am particularly concerned to get an assurance about King Edward memorial park, which is adjacent to Shadwell basin. Various developers have had their greedy eyes on that park, which was given to the community in perpetuity. One company wanted to use the jetty for tying up craft. People wanting to use their boats would have arrived in cars, so most of the park would have become a car park. The next company wanted to set up a tennis centre. Developers keep making proposals involving large areas of that park or the whole park, which would deny to the community the use of a park that it has enjoyed for many years. I want an assurance that the powers will not be extended outside the designated area to Shadwell park, which is a desirable bit of waterfront and one of the few parts that are open to the public, who can sit and relax there. I want to know that that area will not be gobbled up.

Mr. Hughes: I hope to deal with that point, ideally in our debate on this group of amendments but, failing that, in that on the next group. I have been able to give the hon. Member for Newham, South a similar assurance in relation to the lagoon.
I do not honestly think that it is possible for the sponsor of a Bill promoted by a corporation such as this to give an assurance that will bind a successor authority. The hon. Lady has a safeguard in the Bill, however—the only safeguard available to us. The next two amendments deal with this. As we see on page 11 of the Bill in its present form, any change—an extension of the kind referred to by the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Bow and Poplar—intended by a successor authority must be made first by order of the Secretary of State. That applies regardless of the identity of the successor authority. The power will not be transferred to, for example, Newham borough council, a trust or even a private company. It will remain with the Secretary of State. Secondly, the change must be made by order of the House. The question is, what kind of order will be involved?

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the promoters were keen for the byelaws to be effective by the summer because of the danger in the water areas. If that is to happen, the timetable seems extraordinarily tight. I have always assumed that byelaws must be published for consultation purposes before they are implemented.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that, even if the Bill completes its passage tonight, it will still have to go back to the other place because it has been amended in Committee. If it becomes law before the summer recess, it is intended that, during the summer—I do not say before the summer—at least some of the powers contained in it should be used to create byelaws, but of course consultation must take place.
Some of the community groups in our three boroughs are exerting pressure for byelaws to be created. By definition, that will be the subject of discussion with the local authorities; but the corporation tells me that it wants byelaws in place this summer to protect the public. It is not certain whether that will be achieved. If the Bill is not passed before the summer recess, it will not be on the statute book until the autumn at the earliest, and any opportunity of legislating in time for the summer will be lost.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is resisting a move to the use of an affirmative order in relation to Cody road because he considers a so-called negative order—which is made notionally; it is "laid upon the Table"—adequate for the purpose? Although it is theoretically a parliamentary procedure, it is really more a stroke of the Secretary of State's pen.

Mr. Hughes: As I remember the quotation, I shall now say, "I was coming to that"—which is, I believe, a quotation from "Alice in Wonderland"; or is it "King Lear"? I am sorry, I do not mean "King Lear"—I mean Edward Lear. There is a slight difference in tone. It must be the heat. I have not yet dealt with the relative benefits of negative and affirmative resolutions, but I want to do so. It is a perfectly proper subject for debate.
The hon. Member for Newham, South makes two more proposals in amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Amendment No. 4 proposes the removal of the power to include in the areas designated for byelaws land—this is in clause 31(2)(a)(ii)—
adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the urban development area, is adjacent to any land for the time being comprised in the designated areas".
At present, that could apply only to the balancing lagoon.

Ms Gordon: It could apply to Shadwell park.

Mr. Hughes: No, it could not. Amendment No. 4 would remove lines 27, 28 and 29 of clause 31. Let us take it from the top. Clause 31(2) states that the Secretary of State may, by order, alter the designated area to
include within the designated areas for the purposes of this Act any area of land in the London borough of Newham. Southwark or Tower Hamlets which for the time being is…adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the urban development area",
and so forth. The land about which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar is concerned would be covered by subsection (2)(a)(i), being
situated within, or adjacent to, the urban development area".
Her park is within that area. I am sorry that all this is a bit technical, but that is not my fault.
As I have said, outside the LDDC area, the byelaws can apply only to the lagoon, and I have given an undertaking about that. I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Newham, South in relation to amendment No. 4, which in its present form deals only with the land in question and land adjacent to it.
Amendment No. 5 would remove lines 30 and 31—subsection (2)(b), which allows the Secretary of State to
remove from the designated areas any land for the time being comprised in those areas.
The promoters resist that for what they describe as pragmatic reasons: they say that the boundaries of the byelaws—not those of the development corporation, which is dealt with by a different procedure—may need to be


changed. I am no more of an expert than any other hon. Member, but it is clear to me that over 10, 20, 30 or 40 years—however long the Act will be on the statute book—the area where a particular set of byelaws may be wanted can alter.
The argument is both simple and general. For example, if a piece of water within a designated area were to be filled in so that it was not dock but housing land, planning permission would be needed, but there would be no need for byelaws governing what is needed in the area of a dock. The promoters want the power to reduce the area that may, at its greatest extent, be covered by byelaws.
Let us take a notional example from the borough and constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South. Let us suppose that the outer limit of the areas covered by the byelaws, and listed in the schedule and on the map, included a particular piece of water and land, and the land around it, and it was decided to introduce a pontoon, or bring a piece of land forward by 100 m so that the dock became a smaller area of water. It might then be thought appropriate to bring the byelaw nearer to the water, as it were. Those are only pragmatic considerations. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman will view them as overwhelming, but the Bill will give a pragmatic power.
The issue is whether the hon. Gentleman can do anything about it if the Secretary of State suddenly says, "I want to change the limits of the byelaws." That leads to the argument whether we should have affirmative or negative resolutions. The Secretary of State cannot do anything unless he or she comes to the House, but is that procedure adequate as a control?
That leads to amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Amendment No. 6 would leave out subsection (7), which states:
An order under section 31 shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
In shorthand, we call that the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 7 seeks to replace it with an affirmative order procedure by inserting section 31.
I have rehearsed the argument on this issue with the hon. Gentleman and it is up to him whether he accepts it. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar is also concerned about the matter. I understand, and I can see, the logic of the promoter's argument; it is a matter of judgment as to whether it is appropriate. With affirmative resolutions, the Government have to find time in their business for a debate.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman knows that, time after time, affirmative resolutions appear on the Order Paper at 3.30 pm and that, sometimes, Madam Speaker takes orders together. If the House is satisfied with an order and 20 hon. Members do not rise, or if it is decided through the usual channels that it should not go into Committee, it does not take much time for the order to be passed—it requires only that the Clerks call its name and the occupant of the Chair puts the Question. It can take five seconds.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the order must come to this place and we have a chance to consider it. If we do not get our act together, such orders can go through quickly, as many do. Statutory instruments were in existence long before I was elected and probably before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were elected—I do not mean that disrespectfully, but you have been here longer than me. Two sorts of protection on statutory instruments exist.
One gives us better protection than the other—it is what the hon. Gentleman seeks. Protection through the other is more difficult to achieve.
For the pragmatic day-to-day byelaw changes, it is argued that it is unlikely that the Government would find time—given the pressures on their timetable—or have the political will, to place an order on the Order Paper that would introduce the pragmatic, day-to-day changes in byelaws that the docklands corporation seeks. If it asked the Government to change the byelaws, the Government might say, "We are sorry, but it is not worth it. We have far more pressing things to do."
The argument is whether to accept the procedure in the Bill or that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Is it better to have a mechanism by which the Government do not have to introduce an order in this place to change byelaws, or should we have a more difficult mechanism by which the Government have to introduce an order, with the disincentive that follows? The promoters say, "Please give us the flexibility because we are talking not about the constitution of Britain, but about the byelaws of an area of east London."

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has accepted the point that was effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham South (Mr. Spearing) that only a short time is required to pass an order. Clauses 31 and 33 allow for byelaw-making powers to be changed in respect of the area in which byelaws apply, and in respect of the body that has byelaw-making powers. If it is accepted that it is appropriate to have the affirmative resolution procedure for one of those, it is nonsense not to accept it in respect of the other.

Mr. Hughes: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that he was going to make a really good point, with which I would have difficulty dealing. In fact, his point was not as good as I thought that it would be. As a docklands Member of Parliament—and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is nearly a docklands Member of Parliament—I say that changing the boundaries of the docklands corporation or any other development corporation is a substantial matter because they involve planning controls and other rules, but byelaw-making powers are not in the same league.
I should like to deal with the traditional way in which it is decided which procedure should be used. The hon. Member for Greenwich may or may not accept what "Erskine May" says on the matter. It states on page 546 that the affirmative resolution procedure is
used principally for substantial and important portions of delegated legislation, on which a high degree of scrutiny is sought.
It is a matter of judgment as to whether we think that the byelaw-making powers are in that category.
I can justify the difference. Changing the boundaries of the development corporation comes within the definition of substantial, important delegated legislation, whereas byelaw-making powers are not in the same league or of the same importance.
I want to give a pragmatic example. In some parts of the London Docklands development corporation area, development has not yet taken place, especially in the Royal docks, which are located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South. Therefore, the demarcation of designated areas for byelaws has been drawn in a manner that anticipates what the final built development


will look like. We have to guess what planning permissions will be sought. The byelaws are meant to reflect the best guess of the people who have dealt with docklands planning since the corporation came into existence.
That guess may not correspond with the actual built development that either the LDDC or its successors may agree to. It may be necessary, because the physical layout of the docklands may change, to make alterations of the byelaws. The argument is that, when planning procedures and development of the royal docks and other parts of the docklands are complete, only technical alterations to the boundaries may be needed—literally a tight redrawing. A cumbersome procedure that required going to the Government, seeking an affirmative resolution and winning an argument to place it on the Order Paper could discourage the docklands corporation or its successors from proposing such orders and the byelaws could gradually less accurately represent the areas for which they are intended.
There is other protection, even though the hon. Member for Newham, South would like a stronger form of protection to be in place. This perhaps is the best assurance that I can give to him—clause 34(6) requires the LDDC and any successor to consult local authorities before any order is made. Of course, having consulted, the corporation can ignore representations, but I hope that the LDDC will take on board the views of democratically elected local authorities.
I add this to the promoters—there is no reason why, for the remaining life of the docklands corporation or during the lifetime of its successors, any change to the byelaw-making areas should be made without the agreement of local authorities. Their agreement is vital and local authorities must have confidence that they are En the right place. They may become in due time the planning development control authority.
I hope that that was the longest intervention that I shall have to make this evening. It dealt with the largest batch of amendments. They are technical, but substantive arguments have been advanced. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South is persuaded. I shall leave him to speak for himself. There is a justifiable distinction between byelaws and corporation boundaries. It is entirely credible to argue that requiring a complex, burdensome and formalised procedure will be a disincentive to appropriate change. Therefore, the easier procedure, the short route, is preferable.

8 pm

Mr. Spearing: The length of the very thorough speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is, I think, justification for the tabling of the amendments. I am grateful to him for the content of his speech and for the spirit in which he spoke, and I shall comment briefly on his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the drafting of the Bill. I agree that it was a difficult Bill to draft because the LDDC cuts across this country's customary habits of power and law-making. In a case such as this, where byelaws are required, a complicated Bill is required, and I appreciate some of the problems faced by the officials. However, it certainly provided a lesson in law-making.
It is correct that the Cody road basin is not in the schedules. A relevant amendment was tabled in Committee and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it had to go back to

another place. On a point of procedure, the Government or anyone else could, when tidying up, move an amendment to the relevant schedule to have the Cody road lagoon, or the Bromley dock—whatever one likes to call it—included in the Bill once again.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says that we should not strike out such a provision because to do so under amendment No. 4 would mean that the areas in question would be excluded. He thought that it could mean only extending them improperly, so the areas would not go as far as Forest Gate or up the road to Plaistow because there would be no reason to do so. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he is probably right. It could be extended up the River Lea to Riverside walk—perhaps with moorings or a boatyard—in which case the retention of flexibility might be advantageous, although I go no further than saying "might be".
I hope that the London borough of Newham, the British Waterways board or a combination of the two might have the law-making powers. That might be the best solution. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has managed to persuade me that to remove the Cody road basin from the ambit of byelaw-making as a whole might be to the public's disadvantage. The problem is that, used in the wrong way by the Secretary of State, such a provision could be to the public's disadvantage.
The hon. Member also referred to amendment No. 5, which seeks to prevent the reduction of the areas in question. Whether in the Royal docks or anywhere else, inside or out, it should not be possible to reduce the area without putting the issue before the House, which brings us to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that it will be all right on the night and that we do not need the affirmative procedure because a negative one will be adequate.
I must say that never in my life have I heard or read such an eloquent half-persuasive justification for the suspect negative procedure as opposed to the affirmative procedure which most of us would prefer. However, I then remembered that the hon. Gentleman has an occupation that has given him enormous skill in advocacy, which was why his argument sounded so persuasive.
I hope that I highlighted some of the faults in the hon. Gentleman's argument by pointing out that the negative procedure does not require much of the House's time. If it is passed on the nod, it can be can be dealt with in less than 30 seconds—in fact, in 10 seconds—at 3.30 pm. As far as I know, there is no Privy Councillor here. In any event, I do not think that the mumbling takes much longer in the Privy Council—it has to go before the Privy Council, whether under the affirmative or negative procedure.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did not mention the great virtue of the affirmative procedure, which is that it acts as a template. If an order is not good enough, the Government know that there will be a bit of a kerfuffle, perhaps involving even some of their own Back Benchers. This is not a party issue; it is an amenity issue, and other development corporations across the country might be going out of existence. The Government will avoid any trouble not by using a negative procedure but by ensuring that the affirmative procedure is all right. I remember reading a text book about this written by Mr. Jennings in the 1930s. The mere threat of opposing the affirmative procedure was enough to get an amendment withdrawn and retabled. Alas, those days are gone—we have what I call a procedural slippage.
We must consider the practicalities. The alternative open to me is to press the matter to a Division. The extension for which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was so stretched to justify a rather dodgy procedure can, I hope, always be prayed in aid by anyone who thinks that any extension or reduction of the areas in question is unreasonable. I am, therefore, not really content because the balance is not right.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for intervening, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was getting to the end of his remarks. Before he finishes his remarks, I should like to give him an assurance and, if he will allow me, I shall use this intervention to say that I can expressly give the same assurance to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) in relation to King Edward memorial park. I assure her that the LDDC will not extend in the way that she feared, not only because it has no intention of doing so but because Tower Hamlets owns it and would, in all certainty, have to agree. I therefore hope that the two hon. Members can be reassured in a practical rather than a theoretical sense.

Mr. Spearing: I was about to say that there had been limited assurances, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the LDDC will disappear. However, when that happens, the affirmative procedure will be needed to decide who will succeed it. In that instance, a debate will be in order.
The hon. Gentleman did not raise this point and I am almost arguing against it myself, but it would be in order to debate how powers are exercised, provided of course that there were sufficient people present to ensure a debate. I hope that my proposal would ensure that there would be a debate, even if it resulted in byelaw-making powers going to the London borough of Newham. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) is still a councillor, so perhaps we could have a debate to ensure that the trusteeship of byelaw-making powers was in the right hands. Even if those hands did not have the full confidence of all hon. Members, we could be sure that they would exercise those powers responsibly.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division, despite the mass of hon. Members of all political persuasions who would come flooding in having been transfixed and persuaded by the proceedings on television that they have been watching avidly. I shall therefore withdraw the amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that he is seeking leave to withdraw amendment No. 1?

Mr. Spearing: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

GENERAL DUTY AS TO DESIGNATED AREAS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
We cleared a great deal of ground in our debate on the first set of amendments. This amendment relates to clause

5 which I believe is perhaps the most important clause. I should perhaps read clause 5(1), which is the pith of the whole clause. It states:
It shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes which may include sporting, recreational, cultural, commercial, energy-related and navigational purposes.
That clause was not in the original Bill. It was put in by the LDDC after discussion and representations. As time goes by, we realise more about the advantages of recreation in the dock areas, not only in Newham, but in Millwall—the LDDC is proud of its centre there, although it does not cater for as many people as the Vic does—and in the Greenland dock and the South dock.
However, the commercial operations there have not been quite as successful as some people hoped or assumed. There is little money in water sports and recreation. They are, above all, rather like our public parks—something which costs a bit of money to keep up, and ought to have no revenue charge, or at least only a notional charge, especially as people living nearby can get to them so easily. The docks are a wonderful water resource for sport; the surface never wears out and they are relatively cheap to maintain.
However, in connection with clause 5(4), which I am about to discuss, there is a cost in keeping up the docks. We do not know the cost; it is not mentioned in the Bill, but we must pay great attention to it. There is maintenance for water areas—the locks, the dredging, the walls, the patrolling and policing, the people who open the swing bridges, those who lay down the buoys and so on. That all represents an ongoing cost, and when the Government introduced the LDDC they did not think much about it.
Subsection (4) looks a little ominous on the face of it. It says:
No legal proceedings shall be brought, with regard to any byelaw under this Act, in respect of any failure or alleged failure by the Corporation or the Secretary of State to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) above after the expiration of a period of 72 days beginning with the date upon which the byelaw is confirmed.
We can probably reach an accommodation, but anybody reading that would think, "Good Lord. You mean that they can make the byelaw, and if something has gone wrong, after 72 days we cannot go to the court? Finished?" If people tried to go to court, the solicitor would say, "Sorry, mate, you can't. The Act says that's it. And you can't appeal against it."
Some people reading that would be a little suspicious, because the governing subsection (1) does not give much protection. It does not say that rowing, sailing, surfboarding, sub-aqua diving and so on are a priority in the area. I believe that they should be. The area is unique. We would not think of building on Hampstead heath, or putting an airport in the middle of Hyde park, any more than we should think of filling in the Royal docks—but that is what some people once wanted to do.
Subsection (1) gives no priority. It says simply:
It shall be the duty of the Corporation…to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes".
It does not say that one purpose will have priority over another. I argue that the docks are a unique resource for the young people of east London, the rest of London and even further afield.
A regatta was held on the Albert dock not long ago in which there may well have been more boats and more competitors than at Henley. In my view, it was more important than Henley, because there were more ordinary people and more young people rowing there on that one Sunday than there would have been at Henley. Nobody knew about it; nobody was there to photograph it, but in toto I believe that it was more important. However, that fact does not give those activities priority, much as I should like it to.
If someone decided to challenge a development in the court, after 72 days, their chance would be gone. I want to know why that restriction is there, and what sort of protection we have. In expressing what I believe the priorities under subsection (1) should be, I hope that I have advertised what I should like to happen in future. I want to know why we cannot do anything after 72 days. No doubt the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will tell us why.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I can speak much more briefly on this amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have informed the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in one sense there would be no problem in accepting the amendment, but there is no need to do so. Indeed, there is merit in not doing so.
If the Bill goes through unamended, clause 5(4) will state:
No legal proceedings shall be brought with regard to any byelaw made under this Act, in respect of any failure or alleged failure by the Corporation or the Secretary of State to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) or…subsection (3)…after…72 days beginning with the date upon which the byelaw is confirmed.
In lay terms, it says that if somebody wants to challenge procedurally at law the making of the byelaws, that has to be done within 72 days. That gives some certainty for the corporation, as the promoters, and the Government, as the authority within the Act, but also for members of the public.
We could do without the provision, but if it were not there it would be possible for someone to use the normal rules of court. There would be no statute expressly governing the procedure, so the normal rules of court would be used. I know for a fact what those rules say, because we have just been involved in considering them in connection with a prospective legal challenge to the Secretary of State for Health over her announcement on 10 February about Guy's hospital. The same issue arose for the people who want to keep Bart's hospital open. Because of his experience in his previous career, the Minister, too, will know what those rules say.
The rules of the Supreme Court say that someone who wants to take out judicial review proceedings has no more than three months. But that is an outer limit. Even if people apply within the three months, the courts may still rule that they have not come as quickly as they could have done. Therefore, if someone sought to challenge after 71 days, 70 days, 69 days or even 60 days, he could be told, "Sorry, you are too late. You could have come earlier." Out of the theoretically available three months—that is about 90 days—the provision in subsection (4) gives the absolute certainty that within the 72 days one can go to court and challenge the byelaws by way of judicial review if one wants to.
The normal reason for a challenge to the byelaws is the fact that certain procedures have not been carried out. For example, perhaps there should have been consultation and there has not been. I tell the hon. Member for Newham, South that the 72-day rule is actually a better safeguard, because it is a clearer safeguard, for his constituents and mine, and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and those of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—for everyone in the four docklands constituencies. It means that our people in the three local authority areas concerned could challenge within 72 days and know that they could get into court, and no one would say that they were too late.
I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South to accept that that is a better protection. In theory, there would be 18 more days without the provision, but in practice there could be far fewer days. As the clause is written, there will definitely be 72 days. So long as people act within that period, they will definitely get through the door of the court. That is clear on the face of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's proper concerns have been met by my explanation, and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. I am grateful that it will be on the record because, as he rightly says, despite appearances, the provision is there for a purpose contrary to that which some people may assume. I shall therefore accede to his suggestion that I withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31

ALTERATION OF LIMITS OF JURISDICTION

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 21, leave out 'limits of jurisdiction', and insert
'designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act,'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has had quite a long life. Like many private Bills, it has crossed over more than one Session of Parliament. It began its passage at the beginning of 1993, so it has taken about a year and a half to consider. Since it came to this place at the end of last year, it has been changed a little. It was changed a little on Report, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but it was also changed in Committee. I want to say one or two things about the changes so that the House is clear about them, because we have not had a chance to report them and I especially want to deal with a matter which may be of concern to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon).
The purpose of the Bill is to allow the corporation to catch up, as it were, with the real world and to give the byelaw-making power for the docklands area to the people who are running it at the moment and their successors, rather than to people who ran it in the past. The purpose of the Bill is for the benefit of the community, especially


those who visit the area, as well as those who live there. The changes made since the Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons are as follows.
First, there have been revisions to the Bill to make it clear that the Secretary of State's power to transfer functions of the corporation relate only to functions created by or under the Bill and not to the transfer of, for example, land or assets. Secondly, charges which can be imposed by virtue of the Bill, especially under clause 8, will be reasonable. Thirdly, the transfer of functions, pursuant to clause 33, which is the matter that has most exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Newham, South as well as my own and that of other hon. Members representing the docklands, including I am sure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who speaks for the Labour party, are subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That was not the case when we began discussing the Bill, but it is now the case. The Bill has been made tougher in that respect.
Fourthly, the Bill has been changed to ensure that concerns raised by people during its passage should be met. Those concerns were met by amendments to protect landowners or occupiers of land lying in the designated areas, or to protect those who have private rights of navigation.
Finally, protection has been provided for a variety of affected statutory bodies, such as the National Rivers Authority, the Port of London Authority, Billingsgate market, the fire authority and the Port of London health authority.
Since the Bill last appeared, there is also one obvious, significant and substantial change. If the House considers the way in which the Bill is laid out, it will see there is a new part III. Under the new part III, there is a list of protected provisions. I shall spend a minute explaining why they are in the Bill, because they were not listed when the Bill originally came to the House. I was alarmed to discover an issue that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar rightly raised with me yesterday. Suddenly, I discovered that parts of the Bill exclude Canary wharf. It struck me that if a byelaw-making Bill about the docklands excluded Canary wharf, it was very odd, since the biggest building in the whole of the docklands is on that site. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar may well want to make points about that matter, but I shall first deal with what has happened as the Bill has proceeded through the House.
The new part III gives protective provision for people who have private landownership interests in the designated areas. Everybody who is not a docklands corporation landowner—all the other owners in the area—have the same protection. So if the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar owned her house and I owned a house there, we would be assured that we would receive the same protection.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: I see that the hon. Member for Greenwich is nodding. He is welcome to intervene, but, perhaps, he will want to deal with that point in his speech. The important matter is how we reached that position.
Part III lists the other big landowners, which are Canary Wharf Investment Ltd., The Daily Telegraph, Clippers Quay (Millwall) Management Company Ltd., Billingsgate

market, the London City airport, the port health authority, the fire authority, the Crown and telecommunications operators, which, I am told, means, in effect, Mercury Communications plc. Part III means that either the provisions of the Bill or byelaws made under the Bill will not apply in the areas in which those companies have landownership interests, without their consent in writing.
In some cases, as part of the negotiations over the clauses, the docklands corporation did, I am told, enter into private agreements relating to how the consent of the bodies would be given and the circumstances in which consent might be withheld. When the Bill was drafted, it was thought—it was a negotiating tactic as much as anything else—that it was a good idea to include the privately owned land, such as Canary wharf, as well as land owned by the LDDC. I have not checked, but it sounds right that, in the area of the three boroughs concerned, and in the LDDC area, about 95 per cent. of the territory, which is mainly water, is LDDC owned, and about 5 per cent. only is owned by other people. Canary wharf may seem big, but it is mainly upwards and not along the ground.
I am told that the LDDC had hoped that it would receive the agreement of those other landowners so that the byelaw-making powers could apply to their lands, too. However, the Bill has now reached Third Reading, those other landowners have not given their consent and, therefore, they have to be taken out of the Bill because they will not be governed by the byelaw. Therefore, the Bill does not seek to interfere with or take away the pre-existing rights in law of the owners of the land in the LDDC who are not the LDDC itself.
The vast majority of the land is owned by the LDDC or by one of its subsidiaries. All land and waters owned by the LDDC adjacent to LDDC waters, even in private ownership, were originally included in the designated areas shown on the map, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said. That land has now been taken out of the Bill and we are left with the LDDC-owned territory alone. Had that not been done, I understand that there would have been a large fight and the private owners would have not allowed the Bill to get to this stage. That is the history of the addition of part III.
I shall deal with one or two other matters concerning what has happened between Second Reading and Third Reading.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Briefly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course I shall be brief.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar specifically raised matters which were not do with the technicality of the drafting, but real matters of substance and concern. I hope that it is not betraying any confidence—I am sure that it is not, because she has said it many times outside the House as well as inside it—to tell the House that the matter that she had at the top of her list was that she believed that her constituents were effectively promised that the extension to the docklands light railway would include a station at Island Gardens. She made it clear that they were effectively told that that was guaranteed. When the Bill was last before the House, that had not been delivered.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar raised a few other issues of equal importance, such as the lack of affordable housing on the Isle of Dogs, the lack of jobs for locals in the activities of the LDDC—a matter which I raise regularly on behalf of my constituents and which I am sure


that my two colleagues do on behalf of theirs—delays in starting the Jubilee line extension and the specific local matter of the lack of access by the Docklands sailing club to a slipway.
I do not seek to persuade the hon. Lady of the unmitigated merits of the LDDC. She knows that that is not my view of it. I shall tell her the facts and leave her to decide whether what could have been achieved has been achieved. As she knows, on the key issue of Island Gardens station, outside forces have intervened—we hope, to help us all.
I am told that the corporation has contributed to the provision of 315 social housing units—homes, better called—in the hon. Lady's constituency at Timber wharves and 187 at Masthouse terrace. The corporation has also facilitated—I do not know quite what that means—65 self-build units at Maconachies wharf.

Ms Gordon: It is only fair to point out that the 300-odd houses that were provided at Timber wharf were built to replace 500 houses that were destroyed to make way for the Limehouse link. So that is not a fair way of putting it.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right. I was not seeking to pretend otherwise. I remember that debate. It was extremely controversial.
Schemes have apparently been set up that would produce another 68 homes on another three sites on the Isle of Dogs. I should add from a personal point of view that there is a huge remaining need for affordable homes in Tower Hamlets, as there certainly is in Southwark and Newham. Affordable homes are needed to rent, for shared ownership and to own. We need many more of them. If we were led by need rather than demand, we would do better.
I will tell the House what the brief says about jobs. It says:
It is not possible to quantify among the jobs created on the Isle of Dogs those which have gone to pre 1981 residents.
To be fair, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar was asking about pre-1981 residents. She was asking about residents whether pre-or post-1981. All that the corporation is clear about is that before 1981 there were 9,000 jobs on the island and now there are 20,000. Unemployment in Tower Hamlets is almost as bad, if not as bad, as unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey. I know that many of the jobs that have been created in Southwark have not gone to people who live in Southwark, let alone to people who live in Newham or Tower Hamlets. Many people have been brought in and continue to be brought in. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and other colleagues must keep pressing within the law for much more commitment to delivering local employment possibilities for the remaining life of the LDDC.
Mercifully, the Jubilee line extension has now begun and work is well advanced. I welcome that, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar does. I am told that the Docklands sailing and watersports centre has permanent rights to the slipway. It is not a matter for the corporation. The sailing club is entitled to make arrangements with the watersports centre. I understand that Lord Cocks has written to the hon. Lady on that matter. I hope that she will be able now to facilitate the conclusion of that for the purpose that she wanted. That is perfectly reasonable.
The Chairman of Committees in the other place determined only last week in private business that the docklands light railway had given an undertaking to Parliament to build a new underground station at Island

Gardens when the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham was built to replace the existing terminus station there. Docklands light railway and the corporation had proposed that Island Gardens station and Cutty Sark station on the other side of the Thames in the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenwich should be omitted from the scheme to reduce the capital costs of the project and ensure its financial viability.
The new station must now be built as part of the project. If it is not, docklands light railway will be in breach of an undertaking given to Parliament in 1992 when the enabling legislation was before the House. That means that £3.5 million of capital costs cannot be cut from the project as originally proposed. The conclusion is that if the docklands light railway extension goes ahead—we await an announcement—it will do so only with Island Gardens station as part of it. I know that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar welcomes that confirmation of the undertaking and what the law says. All that we must do now is press the Government to make the DLR extension go ahead.
It would be wrong of me to take up further time to put my views about what is needed in docklands. I put them fairly succinctly on Second Reading. As long as there is a London Docklands development corporation—I did not support its creation—it is important that it responds to the needs of its community. The Bill seeks to give it the power to regulate safety within its area.
I hope that, on that basis, the House will support the Bill on Third Reading and allow it to go on its way towards the statute book soon. I have no doubt that we shall continue having debates about the merits of development of the docklands in London and about the best way forward, long after tonight. That is justifiable. I hope that that will not prevent our saying tonight that the Bill is a good thing which the House can support.

Mr. Raynsford: On the face of it, the Bill, which empowers the London Docklands development corporation to make byelaws to regulate the former docks area, should not be a complicated or controversial measure. There is wide agreement that new byelaws should be made that reflect the dramatic change in the character and use of the docks in the past 25 years.
In his speech on the Second Reading on 14 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described the transformation of the docks from a heavily policed working area surrounded by high walls, dock gates and high security to an area predominantly given over to leisure, public access and recreation. Other hon. Members who represent the docklands area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has sponsored the Bill, echoed that view.
The new role of the docks calls for a different system of regulation or byelaws. On that point there is unanimity, but that is about as far as the unanimity reaches. The progress of the Bill through the House and the other place has been marked by controversy. It has raised many more questions than answers. It has unlocked an extraordinary number of skeletons, which have taxed the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey when he tried to give us answers not only tonight but on Second Reading and in the intervening period.
The first question is whether it is appropriate to give the powers to regulate the docks to the LDDC. It has specific and special powers for the whole docklands area, but it is an unelected and unaccountable quango. Perhaps even more to the point, it is due to go out of existence within the next four years. Why we should go to such lengths—the Bill has taken an extraordinary time grinding its way through the parliamentary process—to give byelaw-making powers to a body which is about to be wound up is a cause for some astonishment.

Mr. Spearing: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is a simple answer to that. The Bill is not about giving byelaw-making powers to the LDDC. It is about giving such powers to its unnamed successors, albeit by affirmative order of the House, not the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Indeed, I was about to say that the whole question leads immediately to the issue which has rightly exercised many hon. Members. It is the curiously worded—indeed, some might say injudiciously worded—clause 33 as it now is, previously clause 32, relating to the transfer of functions from the LDDC to its successors.
As previously drafted, the clause gave sweeping powers to the Minister to assign the functions of the LDDC with regard to the management of the former dock areas, and possibly much wider powers—not only management powers—to anyone chosen by the Minister, without any reference to Parliament.
On Second Reading, the Minister put forward an interesting and fascinating defence. He said that we should not get worked up about these draconian powers, because he already had them under existing legislation, and the clause was unnecessary. If that is the case, the question arises why the Government allowed their creature, the LDDC, to waste parliamentary time promoting an unnecessary clause. We never had an explanation for that one.
Clause 33, as it now is, is indicative of the whole sad, sleazy approach which the Government take to issues of public interest and accountability. It is born of the Government's enmity to democratically elected and accountable local authorities, which would naturally be the appropriate bodies to make byelaws and manage these areas for public recreational use. That would ensure not only consistency with the byelaws applicable in other local parks and recreation areas but continuity of management because, unlike the LDDC, the local authorities—the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Newham—will continue to be there after 1998.
If the Minister contributes to this debate, he will undoubtedly argue that local authorities have not opposed the provisions giving those powers to the LDDC. The truth of the matter is that the local authorities would undoubtedly have been more than happy to assume responsibility for the management of the former dock areas if they had been given the resources to meet the potentially high costs of maintaining the docks, the dock walls and the dock gates.
The Government have given them no option. They squeezed their budgets year on year while lavishing £1.6 billion on the LDDC. If the three dockland boroughs had

received a fraction of the sums paid to the LDDC, they would gladly and willingly have taken on responsibility for managing the docks—and I am sure that that is the case today.
What will happen when the LDDC is wound up? On Second Reading, the point was expressed most forcibly both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—I quote my right hon. Friend:
the logic points to the return of not merely the land in docklands to the boroughs of which they are part, but to the management of the water and of the docks in whatever local authority boundary they fall."—[Official Report, 14 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 678.]
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made clear his preference—he has echoed it tonight—for the democratically elected local authorities to be the successor bodies. At the same time, he confirmed his inability to assure us that that would happen. He reported to the House that the Bill does not stipulate who should be the successor, because no decision has yet been taken. He expressed the hope that that might be clarified during the later stages of the Bill's passage. Those stages are now being completed, and we are no wiser.
Clause 33 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may, on an application from the LDDC, transfer these powers to any person. I am sure that the Minister will find the freedom to hand over these powers to whoever he wishes very convenient and agreeable. Indeed, who knows who he will propose? Those of us who have watched the lamentable way in which the Government sold out the public interest to Tory placemen and a few Tory placewomen, as well as rewarding contributors to Tory party funds, will rightly feel concerned that this could be yet another example of the confusion of public and private interest which has become such a hallmark of the Government.
The nub of the matter is that the management of the former docks area should be undertaken not by bodies which are not publicly accountable and do not have a responsible position, unlike democratically elected local authorities. The management of these areas and the byelaw-making powers should be given to bodies which can recognise the distinction between public and private interest, and which will be acting in the public interest.
The Minister, from a sedentary position, frequently quoted Lord Cocks, who is a member of the London Docklands development corporation. He will recall that I was not talking about the LDDC; I was talking about the successor bodies. If the Minister will give us an indication who the successor bodies will be, and whether they will be publicly accountable—whether they will be democratically elected—I will willingly give way to give him an opportunity of doing so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I do not intend to engage in this debate, for the simple reason that this is the second time that we have debated the issue. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this is a Bill within a narrow compass. It has taken up a considerable amount of time not because of any of the complexities in the Bill but simply because Opposition Members have dreamed up a number of fantasies with which they have wished to detain the House.
The Bill is more about Labour Members wishing to vent their spleen on the London Docklands development


corporation. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that his points seem to suggest that LDDC could not distinguish between public and private interest. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give any instance when the LDDC has not acted in the public interest.

Mr. Raynsford: The first instance that I shall give is the extraordinary way in which it has lavished large sums of public money on bankers, property developers and people who have contributed considerably to the personal profits of individual shareholders, many of whom are contributors to the Conservative party, but who have failed to meet their responsibility to meet the needs of the people of the Isle of Dogs.
If the Minister had gone to the Isle of Dogs in the local elections earlier this year, he would be only too well aware of the dangerous consequences of the neglect by the LDDC and his Government of the legitimate concerns and grievances of local people who have seen little benefit for all the sums of money which have been lavished on the LDDC.
I note that the Minister, in his response, sought immediately to change the subject of the debate. He did not want to answer my specific question whether there would be an undertaking that the successor body, which is what we are talking about, which would assume these byelaw-making powers, would be a democratically elected and accountable body. I note, and the House will note, the Minister's silence on that point.
The Minister claims that the delay in the Bill going through the House is because of Opposition Members. That is an absurd suggestion. The delay has been entirely to do with trying to sort out some of the technicalities which even now—even tonight on Third Reading—still have not been sorted out. How the Government can allow their creature, the LDDC, to bring forward legislation which includes a map identifying the Cody road balancing lagoon as one of the areas but cannot get a mention of it in the Bill is simply one more indication of the problems.
The issues of jurisdiction and areas of responsibility under the Bill are technicalities which rightly and properly should be identified by the House as part of parliamentary scrutiny. It is far from satisfactory, as we have recognised tonight, to have to allow a Bill to go through which is in some ways defective—some of the language is dubious, and there are discrepancies between the maps and the schedules—purely because there is no further opportunity to do anything about it if the LDDC is to have its powers in time for the summer.
As I have said, the nub of the matter is that management of the former dock areas should have been undertaken by democratically elected public authorities. At the very least, the three local authorities concerned—the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham—should be given the first option of taking over these responsibilities from the LDDC.
I understand that the London borough of Tower Hamlets recently made representations to that effect, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to the House that the three local authorities will have the right of first refusal when the LDDC comes to transfer those powers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that point.
While that issue has remained unclarified during the Bill's passage, other changes have been made which

suggest that the Government's thinking points in a very different direction. I am referring to clauses 18 to 27, all of which have been inserted at the promoter's instigation in the last stage of the process under the heading "protective provisions". The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was somewhat coy about those provisions and said that he had sought a briefing at the last minute on the reason for their insertion. In his usual elegant and carefully argued fashion, he gave us some sort of defence of those provisions. It was entirely unconvincing. Other than clarifying the position of certain other public authorities—the Port of London Authority, the City corporation and the Crown—the provisions merely grant extremely wide-ranging exemptions to certain commercial interests, in particular, Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. and its associated companies.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that there was no distinction between the benefits offered to the various companies identified in the clauses. Clause 19, which is for the protection of Canary Wharf Investments Ltd., Canary Wharf Ltd., or Heron Quays Developments Ltd., has three subsections. Subsection (2) states:
The provisions of this Act and of any byelaw under this Act shall not apply to any land in which the company has…interest, or an entitlement to such an interest, without the consent in writing of the company.
Subsection (3) states:
Subject to any consent given under subsection (2) above, nothing in this Act or any order or byelaw made under this Act shall affect any rights, powers or privileges which are vested in, or enjoyed by, the company",
and so forth.
Clauses 20 and 21, which deal with the protection of the Telegraph plc, West Ferry Printers Ltd., Mercury Communications Ltd., and Clippers Quay (Milwall) Management Company Ltd., contain much more restricted provisions. They apply only to byelaws, not to the provisions of the Bill, and there is no third subsection, as there is in the case of Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. Those people responsible for briefing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were economical, at the very least, in their briefing if they implied that the clauses contained similar treatment for similar organisations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that I have not misrepresented the views of those who briefed me. The negotiated position is certainly different for each of the landlords, and each clause deals with them differently. None the less, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the general rule still applies. It was hoped that all those organisations will sign up to the byelaws. They clearly did not, and the clauses in the Bill contain what they did not sign up to. It is certainly true that that is different for the different organisations.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. It shows that whatever Canary wharf wants the LDDC will bend over backwards to offer.
As we know only too well, the Canary wharf venture has been the great totem of the LDDC's activity. It proved only too clearly that throwing large sums of public money at private developers is not a guarantee of success. The Government frequently say that throwing public money at a problem is no solution. Heaven knows, they have thrown enough money at Canary wharf, and the building is still half-empty. It also proves that, because of the status and


prestige associated with Canary Wharf Ltd., the LDDC will accept just about anything it requests to try to keep it happy. The Bill contains a clear sign of that.
Clause 19 provides that any byelaws made under the Bill shall not affect any land in which Canary Wharf Ltd. and its associated companies have a freehold or leasehold interest or an option without their agreement. The company has an absolute veto over any byelaws proposed by the LDDC, or its successors, which affect any of the land that the company controls.
As we know, that represents a substantial area, as it includes not merely the base of the huge 50-storey tower, but also the surrounding area and the Heron Quays site. The democratically elected local authority is not given any such power of veto. We already know the measures that Canary Wharf Ltd. has taken to restrict public access to the areas it controls. Roads are closed, and private security patrols abound. What hope is there for any rights of public access to those parts of the docks and the adjoining land surrounding Canary wharf owned by Canary Wharf Ltd. and its associated companies?
How can that position be reconciled with clause 7, which sets out a principle with which almost all hon. Members would agree? It specifies:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining public access to the waterside.
That is a fine principle, but will it extend to Heron Quays and Canary wharf?
What guarantee can the Minister give that the private businesses that have received huge public subsidies to construct the half-empty offices that stand on their sites will not be allowed to put up the barriers and the "No entry" signs, thus entirely flouting the principle of
securing…public access to the waterside"?
The Canary wharf opt-out—that is what clause 19 allows—sets a very bad precedent indeed. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, there are similar, but not identical, opt-outs for other commercial interests—the Telegraph plc, West Ferry Printers Ltd., Mercury Communications Ltd. and Clippers Quay (Milwall) Management Company. If that is a blueprint for the future of docklands, it is a blueprint with which we are becoming all too familiar—a blueprint in which the public interest is always subordinated to the interests of the property developers, bankers and other private financial interests.
That is why, despite the £1.6 billion in public money that has been pumped in by the Government, docklands remains a tragically divided community, which is badly hit by poverty, unemployment and bad housing. It is an area in which the conspicuous consumption and glittering office blocks of those who have done well out of the LDDC stand in marked contrast to the unmodernised, bleak housing in which too many of the Isle of Dogs residents still have to live.
Sadly, that is why the evil of racism has been able to raise its ugly head in recent years, feeding off the justified resentment of long-standing local residents, who have received little or nothing from the huge cornucopia of riches lavished on the LDDC.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the limited number of social homes provided by

the LDDC in recent years. Those homes are obviously welcome, but in an area with such an enormous need for housing, where housing has become an important catalyst for social and racial conflict, any responsible organisation, exercising the sort of powers that the LDDC exercises, should study all the sites it controls to find out how many could be made available for local people in need of rented housing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill. He seems to be going well beyond the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall return immediately to the provisions in the Bill. I was simply putting it in context and describing the LDDC and its failure to meet local needs, which gives rise to the suspicion that measures such as the Bill essentially provide yet further advantage for certain private interests, rather than serving the public interest or providing proper protection for the needs of local people. That is why, despite the fact that the monuments of the work of the LDDC have so markedly changed the landscape in east London, the body responsible remains profoundly unloved by local people and will be, when it is wound up, unlamented.
The Minister ought to ponder those points. After all the public money and the dramatic transformation of the physical appearance of the area, why is the responsible body treated with such suspicion and hostility by local people?
The tragedy is that opportunities have been wasted to secure the regeneration of the docklands, which was urgently required in the interests of the whole community, not just of one section. The Bill is in every respect typical of the whole process. There was an opportunity to create a new framework for the management and use of the former dock areas in the interests of the whole community, but sadly the opportunity has been squandered through the failure of the Government and the LDDC properly to distinguish between public and private interest, and by their unforgivable bias in favour of the latter.
We will not vote against Third Reading of the Bill, because we want to see the byelaw-making powers in place. We see, as everyone does, the advantage in having byelaws which will provide protection for public safety and will hopefully ensure better use of the water areas. It is not our intention in any way to delay that process. I am somewhat sceptical of the claim that the byelaws will be in place by this summer, and we will all look to see whether that pledge is honoured.
We will not oppose the Bill tonight, but we will look on it with sadness. Yet another opportunity has been missed by a body which has received so much public money and so much opportunity to change the landscape of east London for the good, but which, in practice, will disappear in two, three or four years' time, unloved and unlamented by the local residents.

9 pm

Ms Gordon: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to many of the points which I made on Second Reading. I do not want to reiterate those points or to answer many of the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised regarding my Second Reading speech, except on the question of Island Gardens. My


constituents were very glad that the hearing which took place before the Lord Chairman of Committees decided in their favour. We hope that the docklands light railway and the London Docklands development corporation will not try to find a way of wriggling out of their commitment again, and that the DLR extension will go ahead with an underground station at Island Gardens.
I wish to emphasise some of the points which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). The Bill has too many vague clauses. It concerns the management of a very large area—400 acres of water and 25 miles of paths. The Bill gives the LDDC powers to make byelaws, and to control dockside paths, the movement of vessels, pollution, parking and the landing and taking off of helicopters. In other words, it will have the same powers to make byelaws as local authorities.
The important difference, which has already been pointed out, is that local authorities are democratically elected and are subject to public pressure. The LDDC—as we know from our bitter experience—is not. It ignores public pressure and ignores the needs of the community. Clause 33 originally empowered the Secretary of State to transfer the "assets" of the LDDC, but the wording has now been altered to "functions". That is still too vague.
It is clear to me that the best body to ensure public enjoyment of the docks area and the best use of that great area of water which is now available for the benefit of the community is the local authority. The local authority has changed hands. The Liberal Democrat-controlled authority which existed before last May did object to the Bill but, after certain assurances, withdrew the objection.
The new administration feels that it has the best people to ensure the public enjoyment and the development of the area for the community, but it is wary of the cost of maintaining the docks. It does not want to take on the liabilities without any of the assets. It has been told that the dock walls, which are deep under the water and 100 years old, will cost a great deal of money to repair if they start to crumble. A study should have been done well before the presentation of the Bill to find out how much money would be needed to put the docks in good repair and what funding would be needed to maintain the walls.
I feel very much that, in two years' time when the LDDC ceases to exist, the local authority should have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the first chance to take over the control of the designated area and of the byelaws. But it must be assured that the designated area will be endowed, so that it will have the money for maintenance. The question of funding is the only thing that would stop the local authority from wanting to take democratic control, as the area should be controlled. It must have the money to do the maintenance and development.
The Bill says that reasonable endeavours to secure local representation on a successor body must be undertaken, but that is not clear enough. Tonight we have not been told who the successor body should be. My constituents and those of other docklands areas will certainly want the powers to be handed over to the local authority, together with the money to carry out the development needed to maintain the docks and create a good environment for the enjoyment of local people and also to develop tourism, which would create jobs and benefit the area.
I am particularly worried about how the LDDC will manage the area. The answer on Shadwell park was not good enough. Nothing will stop the successor authority

from swallowing Shadwell park for commercial development. The position is quite different for rich and powerful companies like Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. As I entered the Chamber tonight I saw that decisions were being made on the hoof under pressure from those rich and powerful companies. I was handed a document explaining why there should be protective provisions for those with private land ownership interests. It says:
there would have been a substantial risk of compensation being forced to be paid against those whose private rights were adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I have not read the document, although I believe that it is publicly available. If those people thought that their private rights were affected by the terms of the Bill, it was open to them, if they thought fit, to petition. While I do not blame them for not doing so, that would have been the right procedure. Were not they informed of what was involved?

Ms Gordon: I do not know what went on behind the scenes. I was simply handed a document, which I assume comes hot off the press from the promoters. Those who are rich and powerful can request last minute changes to the Bill without going through the relevant procedures, but members of ordinary working communities can get no such guarantee about a park that is precious to them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? Had the Bill not been amended, those in the protected provisions place, being fully aware of what was going on, would have had to petition. Had they petitioned, there would have been the mother and father of all battles because their private rights would have been affected and massive amounts of money would have had to be paid out. So the LDDC, thinking discretion the better part of valour, pulled back from making provisions in the Bill and decided that its original intention would be better avoided and thus a quieter life would be achieved for all.

Ms Gordon: I shall return later to the exemption of private companies, particularly relating to pollution. In the meantime, I am concerned about what charges will be made under the byelaws. After my speech on Second Reading, I received a letter from National Car Parks Ltd informing me that the LDDC wanted to charge it £1,175 per annum simply for putting up a sign directing motorists to its multi-storey car park at City harbour. After some discussion, the charge was reduced to £940 but NCP decided that it was not worth while. Consequently, many motorists do not know where the car park is.
If National Car Parks has been asked to pay such a large licence fee—in no other area has a local authority ever asked the company to pay a fee to put up a sign to direct motorists to its car park—what other charges will be made? What assurances have we that charges for water sports, for fishing rights, possibly for bringing one's chair—as the LDDC has refused to put down benches around the dock so that people can sit and enjoy the water, although I have asked many times—for use of a vessel, for use of the steps and for use of the jetties for landing, will not be made prohibitively great by the market-minded LDDC? If such large charges are made, only those people with a lot of money in their pocket will be able to use those facilities, whereas poorer people, pensioners, and youth


—to whom the enjoyment and the development of water sports is especially important—will be forced out of the picture because they cannot afford them.
We have no assurance that access to the water and access to facilities will be affordable, and that the LDDC will develop facilities on the water and along the dockside. It has, in the past, given money for capital programmes—for building the docklands sailing centre, for instance—but the revenue to run them is never forthcoming. We want assurances that market forces will not lead whatever happens on the dockside.
The LDDC also has control of the landing and taking off of helicopters. If that will be profitable, will there be some type of floating landing pad on the docks, which will create more noise and more pollution for people in the area? I should like assurances that that will not happen.
To return to the subject of the private companies, one of the private companies is Westferry Printers, and I remind the House that it is stated that the powers of the LDDC over that area will include pollution. My constituents are so worried about pollution of water and air from printing works that they have formed an organisation called Londoners Against Media Pollution. The council, in the Wapping area, is conducting a very large study, carried out by the South East Thames health authority, on volatile organic pollution. I have met Westferry Printers staff. They assure me that they are doing their best to ensure that pollutants do not go into the water and that everything possible will be done, but I do not know how much is possible and how much is being done, and I do not think that a printing works, or any other company, should be exempted from any byelaws that seek to prevent pollution.
All in all, there are far too many question marks about the Bill. Far too many questions have not been answered. After years and years of the docks being industrial centres, we have a chance to make that area a wonderful place, where people can enjoy the water and water sports, which tourists can visit, and where developments that will benefit the whole community can take place.
We are putting those powers in the hands of an organisation that has already shown that it will not do that. It has shown that it does not develop things in the interests of ordinary people. The succession of those powers when the LDDC winds up is very much in the air. We have been given no assurance, and we do not know whether there is any chance of the local authorities obtaining the endowment and the powers to control the docks and paths, as I believe should be the case.

Mr. Stephen Timms: On its foundation, the LDDC embarked on its regeneration remit with an approach that, in its early days at least, largely ignored the local communities where it was based. There were several instances of brick walls being built to keep apart the existing community and the new development and its incoming occupiers, who were the intended beneficiaries of it. That created enormous resentment, and two of the three local authorities withdrew their limited representation on the board of the LDDC in response.
In those early days it was a model of regeneration that excluded and ignored the local community and was not effective. In the middle of the 1980s, in Newham and

elsewhere, there was a sea change in the approach. My predecessor as hon. Member for Newham, North-Fast was chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, which produced a report pinpointing the need for regeneration to provide demonstrable benefits for existing local communities. Others also made that point at the time, which led to changes in Newham.
In 1987 the council, with the corporation, drew up a memorandum of agreement about the benefits that would accrue to the existing communities as a result of what were at that time expected to be major developments. They included a commitment to secure 1,500 homes for rent as part of the development in the Royal docks, a target of 25 per cent. of all jobs created to be taken by local residents, towards which the local authority with the corporation and others would work.
The recession intervened and the developments have not yet materialised, but I believe that they will ultimately. It is essential that the commitments entered into and the targets set then are honoured. Occasionally we receive signs from the corporation that it may wish to renege on some of them; but I hope that that will not happen. The commitments were given and accepted on the basis that existing residents must benefit from the regeneration process. The position remains unchanged and it is important that those obligations are met.
From 1987 until a couple of months ago I chaired the negotiating team that worked with the corporation on behalf of the borough. There has been a change in the way that the corporation has approached its task—a change for the better. There is a good and constructive working relationship between the borough and the corporation. The borough has not objected to the Bill, despite some of its regrettable features, which have been drawn to our attention this evening. I shall not object to it, but I want to make a couple of observations.
Earlier this week I was dellighted to read in the Evening Standard some comments by the chairman of the London Docklands development corporation which I endorse. He drew attention to two key Government decisions that are awaited and that will determine how quickly the corporation is able to get on with its task of completing the work in docklands. He said that the two decisions were
whether Stratford is chosen as the intermediate station for the Channel Tunnel rail link and which of the two proposed sites for a river crossing, Blackwall or the East London river crossing at Beckton"—
which he favoured—
are built.
I agree with him on both those points, but I particularly want to draw attention to the importance of the decision on the location of the channel tunnel station. The verdict is not yet in—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I should say that, while a certain amount of background is acceptable, the hon. Gentleman's remarks must home in more closely on the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Timms: I shall gladly do that, but I was glad to put on record my agreement with the chairman of the LDDC.
I was surprised to read in the Bill the long list of organisations and private owners who have opted out of the byelaws. The local authorities have accepted the pressing need for the byelaws to be drawn up in order to safeguard the public interest around the dock areas. My hon. Friend


the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) mentioned that one of the major polluters has been able to avoid the byelaws. That is alarming, and a great worry and disappointment.

Ms Gordon: I did not say that it was one of the greatest polluters. I said that constituents were concerned that the print works in Wapping were sending out pollutants and effluence, and that a study was being done to find out whether that was true. There are also print works in the designated area that are exempt from the byelaws.

Mr. Timms: I am grateful for that clarification. Certainly, exemptions undermine the Bill.
My point is that I believe that there is growing anxiety among Conservative Members about the damage being done to our social fabric by the fact that the market has been allowed to rip in a number of areas, including the development of docklands. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) concluded, in an interesting pamphlet on civic conservatism which he wrote recently:
The crucial Tory insight is that a community has to be embodied in real institutions which are essential to sustain traditions, values and patterns of behaviour. A concern with the strength of Britain's institutions, both national and local, is at the heart of the Tory tradition. Addressing that concern is essential to representing the values of the quiet majority of the British people.
The London Docklands development corporation started out from a strain of thinking in the Conservative party that was firmly opposed to this outlook, but it is now gaining favour—

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the special measure, in the form of the LDDC, had to be taken because the councils surrounding the area, which had run it since the war, had neglected it and huge areas of docklands were lying waste? Going down Salter road in Bermondsey is a revelation these days compared with what it was like in 1978. Surely the hon. Gentleman will allow some credit for that.

Mr. Timms: I do not for a moment suggest that little has been achieved: a great deal has been achieved, although we might debate the mechanisms that may have led to those achievements. I repeat my point—increasingly recognised by Conservative Members—that it is extremely important that democratic institutions, locally acknowledged, play their proper role.
This Bill will give byelaw powers to the LDDC, but the crucial question that has been asked concerns what will happen once the LDDC goes—what will happen to the powers? Will local authorities continue to be sidelined, or will, as I hope, the powers be passed on to local authorities so that the vital role that local institutions play in our community of east London can be sustained?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his promotion of this private Bill and on the manner in which he has dealt with the points raised this evening. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on what I think the whole House would consider to be a balanced and reasonable speech—standing in stark contrast to some other Opposition contributions on other occasions. One of the difficulties has

been the seeming impossibility of Opposition Members ever giving credit for the many achievements that the LDDC has brought about in its part of London.
The Bill turns on a very narrow compass. It is generally agreed that it is a worthy Bill, worthy of a speedy passage. It has taken quite a long time to pass through its stages in the House, for a number of reasons. It should be delayed no longer, and I hope that the House will give it a speedy Third Reading.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister has referred several times to how long this Bill has taken to proceed. In an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), he even suggested that the motivation behind the speeches made by Opposition Members on these technicalities and amendments was "political". I remind the Minister of the technicalities that we dealt with tonight and the procedural matters dealt with largely on Second Reading. Of course there was an element of politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich dealt with those, correctly, froth the Front Bench whereas some of us—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), and myself on procedural matters—eschewed those aspects and dealt with procedural and legal matters that would be dealt with by the Minister if they were being applied to Banbury or Oxfordshire. Why not? That is what Parliament is about.
Although the LDDC has been successful in certain respects, we had difficulties dealing with the right sort of byelaw, procedure and schedule because the measure cuts across the grain of our historic, civic control of public amenity. What could be a greater public amenity than the docks of London?
I remind the House that the docklands light railway was initially agreed in principle by everyone—from Ken Livingstone to Sir Horace Cutler, and by every borough councillor of every party. It still does not run on Sunday.

Mr. Simon Hughes: And it still breaks down.

Mr. Spearing: It does not run on Sunday even when it does not break down—and if one travels from Beckton to the Bank, one must change twice.
A Bill that is ostensibly for the future should not raise more questions than it answers. Of course there must be byelaw powers to fill the vacuum left by the Port of London Authority, for a totally different function for the docks—but speaker after speaker has shown, not on a party basis but purely on a legal basis, what will happen in two years. Who will make the byelaws then, and what will be the areas? The Bill does not say. It allows flexibility in delineation of the designated area and flexibility of the determining authority. I will not say that it is non-legislation, but it is almost delegislation.
If the LDDC were a permanent body, we would know the answers to the questions that I suggested—but it ain't and we don't. I could hear in that phrase the voice of my former hon. Friend, Ian Mikardo. What a wonderful speech he would have made on such an issue.
The Bill does not take us far—two years ahead at most, and then it will be left to the Secretary of State. It is not a very satisfactory Bill.
The Bill had a rocky passage in both Houses. Some hon Members—I do not see many of them in their places tonight—talk about Parliament's arcane procedures. We


have spent five hours today debating in the Chamber—never mind in Committee—a Bill which should not need debate of that sort.
We are told that parliamentary procedure is able to deal with an elephant and to pick up a pin. It is much better than people think. Even this little Third Reading debate, which revealed the procedural and political vacuums that exist, would have been impossible had not one hon. Member entered the Chamber at 2.30 pm a few weeks ago and said "Object." Of course that power can be abused, but it shows that there is goodness in procedure. It has allowed Members of Parliament representing east London to express the genuine concerns of their constituents and try to bring vision to the civic administration that is temporarily—I hope very temporarily—taken away from properly elected representatives, whether for Greater London or the boroughs concerned.
We hope that the vacuum will be filled after two years and that the questions will be answered largely by civic accountability, civic enterprise and the return of democratic government in east London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a valid point about public access throughout docklands, and planning permission. I think I am correct in saying that, in granting planning permission, the corporation has required public access wherever possible: that has been its policy.
I checked to find out whether special treatment was given to the companies listed in part III of the Bill, and the answer is no. Anyone with a private interest who is in business has a right over the land along Waterside.
There is no public access there, but it has been granted in every other area owned by the corporation where such access is possible. So far, if the owners of land have not wanted public access to be granted, they have always been able to insist that it should not be granted. I agree that in some cases it should have been granted, but at least the arrangements have been consistent.
Local authorities have not been included in the list of protected organisations, because they do not now own any land in the designated areas: whether they liked it or not, it was all vested in the development corporation. Clause 9(4), however, states:
Byelaws shall not be made under this section which relate to—
(a) land forming part of a highway maintainable at the public expense, without the consent of the highway authority"—
which is the local authority—
or
(b) land which is a walkway
within the meaning of the current legislation,
without the consent of the borough council".
In no circumstances can byelaws override the local authority's rights as highway authority or council.
I have dealt with the specifics of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) about private companies, and also checked the point about private homes, as opposed to big developers. Apparently, no private, individually owned homes were given rights where a walkway existed. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned areas that management companies own where there is a

walkway; the protected list in part III includes some management companies which go on to let individually owned homes with a freehold. Clippers Quay (Millwall) Management Company Ltd. is an example. However, I understand that no individually owned home has been given a walkway to which it has been able to withhold public access.
I also entirely share the hon. Lady's view about charges. The Bill goes as far as Bills normally do—we can only hope that it goes far enough—in saying:
The Corporation may make, demand and recover
only such charges as are reasonable. We must ensure that it never imposes charges that are unreasonable for our constituents and other users—and that includes even nine-year-old kids. We would have the right to challenge any such charges.
I agree with the hon. Lady that we do not want a floating helipad, and I understand that the corporation does not want one either. The proposal does not seem to be floating very well itself! I am sure that we all hope that it will not come to anything. If it does, it will not be because the corporation wanted the helipad; to be fair, it has opposed them in the past, and my constituency, at least, has never had one.
I know that pollution is an important issue in the hon. Lady's constituency. In general terms, it is not intended that the byelaws should deal with pollution, and the exemptions for Canary wharf and, more importantly, the printing companies listed in the protective provisions will in no way be to the detriment to the hon. Lady's constituents. Those companies are not exempted from the general provisions governing pollution.
It has been brought to my attention—and I hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar will be encouraged by this—that clause 14 states:
Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (anti-pollution works and operations) shall have effect in relation to the designated areas as though references to the Authority included references to the Corporation.
The statute law, therefore, will still govern the area. The hon. Lady's constituents and mine, and those of our colleagues, have the right to turn to the law and instigate proceedings under different environment legislation; they do not have to get someone else to do it for them. There is no reduction in the right to control pollution. Whether that legislation is good enough is a different question and the corporation does not intend to introduce byelaws.

Mr. Raynsford: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the byelaws were not intended to be made for the control of pollution. May I refer him to schedule 3, which lists the purposes for which byelaws may be made and which includes at least three paragraphs that seem to be directly related to pollution? Paragraph 5 deals with the prevention of nuisances, which have always been interpreted as pollution. Paragraph 13 deals with the control of noise, which again is a pollutant. Paragraph 24 relates to the removal of rubbish and sewage, which is certainly a pollutant. I had understood that the byelaws would at least be concerned with such pollutants. I was somewhat surprised that he indicated that they were not a matter for the byelaws.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope that the record will show that I said that, in general terms, the byelaws are not intended to deal with pollution. He is right—noise, nuisance and specific forms of rubbish are in the


schedule and so, for example, leaving rubbish bags out and industrial dumping of rubbish will be governed. It is not intended, however, that general anti-pollution legislation should be made under byelaws. Air pollution and water pollution are governed by the general law of the land.
I was trying earlier to assure the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar that the people have the right to challenge air and water pollution by a local firm. They do not need the National Rivers Authority or anyone else to take a local discharger of polluting materials to court. The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Greenwich or I and anyone else could do that. The hon. Member for Greenwich is right—some express purposes are included in the Bill and, in a wide sense, noise and nuisance are a form of pollution.
The hon. Lady dealt with the endowment when power is handed over from the docklands corporation to successor authorities. I am told that surveys have been conducted into the condition of various parts of the dock estate in Tower Hamlets, as well as in Newham and Southwark. The local authority in Tower Hamlets has received all such surveys—I trust that the information that I have been given on that is correct—and negotiations are taking place in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark on the succession. Those in Southwark are the most advanced.
It would be impossible to hand over control to an authority that was unwilling to receive such powers unless a deal were struck and another quango were set up, which the Government could tell to take over the body. This is an important matter and may deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich. I am instructed that there is no intention that another quango will be set up to replace the docklands corporation. The hon. Member for Greenwich says, "Thank God for that".

Mr. Spearing: Although we are on Third Reading, questions remain. Obviously, a residual authority is required to tie up the ends—one was required with the Greater London council. Some coherent, public authority will be needed to manage dock areas, whether they be the west or the south, the Greenland dock or the Royal docks. The Royal docks management authority has been mooted. Surely that will be an offshoot of the borough council and not a quango.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I am not seeking to read the mind of Government or that of the corporation, but the prospective successor authorities include in some places the local authority—that is certainly the intention in Southwark and I know that the matter is being negotiated this year. It could be a private owner, something that I understand is being debated in some areas north of the river; or it could be a community trust; and there may well be other agencies such as that to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
My point is that, unless the successor authorities are the creatures of Government and the Government can tell them what to do, they will not—unless they are mad—take on the responsibility of enforcing the quality-of-life requirements in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark unless someone gives them the money to do so. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bow and Poplar need to ensure that the necessary deal is done. I am sure that the hon. Lady's local authority and Newham and Southwark local councils will also be active in ensuring that it is.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) asked what would happen to the byelaw-making powers after the corporation has gone. The answer is that they will remain—their life will be much longer than that of the corporation. If the Bill is passed, the corporation's successor authorities will be able to change byelaws, but those byelaws will last longer than the corporation.
In response to the Minister's points, I must point out that the Bill has not been before both Houses for an excessively long time. It was in another place from January to December 1993 and has been before this House since December, which is a relatively short time for a private Bill.
The hon. Member for Newham, South spent a few minutes talking about the nature of the Bill. I suppose that, after all these debates and all these words, it is only an enabling Bill after all. However, I hope that even so the House will give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

M25 (Noise Pollution)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Patnick.]

Sir George Gardiner: I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to remember when between junctions 8 and 10 there was no M25 at all. When its opening was delayed because the concrete surface cracked, there was considerable impatience among my constituents, so the partial opening in 1985 was greatly welcomed. It linked up with the further section to junction 7, and so took a great deal of heavy traffic from the A25, weaving its way—to the detriment of our environment—through the towns of Reigate and Redhill and the villages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).
However, no sooner was this section of the motorway in use than complaints rolled in about the noise generated by its brushed concrete surface. They came not only from those living within a 300 m band on either side, such as the populous Merstham estate and the relatively rural area of Mogador to the south and the nearer reaches of Walton-on-the-Hill to the north, but from whole communities beyond, which complained of the constant whine, or hum, from the motorway. Their case is well documented in letters to me from Tadworth's local councillor, John Chiles. As the volume of traffic using the motorway has increased over the years, so too has the constant background whine, day and night.
There were public demands for the concrete to be replaced by tarmac, which everyone judged to be quieter. At first, the Department of Transport claimed that there was no appreciable noise difference—brushed concrete just seemed louder to those driving over it, officials claimed. But that argument did not hold water for long, and it is now generally recognised that porous asphalt produces less noise than hot rolled asphalt, and far less noise than a brushed concrete surface.
At the risk of using technical language, I must get this point on record. The use of porous asphalt, as compared with brushed concrete, achieves a reduction of 6 decibels in dry road conditions and a reduction of 10 decibels in wet road conditions. In human subjective hearing terms, a 100 decibel reduction would be perceived as being half as loud. That is the penalty that those living nearby have to pay for the use of a brushed concrete surface. Small wonder that the call to switch to porous asphalt is growing all the time.
In this debate, I am concerned with noise pollution, but there are other advantages in using porous asphalt. For drivers using the motorway, it decreases spray production in wet weather, cuts down glare, and decreases the risk of aquaplaning. All these are road safety factors, which I know loom large in the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. Porous asphalt is also increasingly being used in a wide range of climates in continental Europe. Yet in Britain its considerable advantages seem not yet to have been accepted.
So what is the argument against using porous asphalt? The principal argument over the years has been that it is much more expensive than brushed concrete. As recently as 10 June this year, the chief executive of the Highways Agency claimed to me in a letter that porous asphalt
is a more expensive type of road surfacing".
Yet that myth had already been exploded by my hon.

Friend the Minister himself, in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 7 March 1994, which is recorded at column 1 of the Official Report.
Asked to compare the cost per mile of surfacing a four-lane motorway with porous asphalt with that of surfacing it with concrete, my hon. Friend replied that the approximate cost per mile of laying a typical concrete road was £1,750,000, and of laying porous asphalt only £345,000. In other words, porous asphalt is more than five times cheaper. I hope that by now that information has filtered down to the Highways Agency.
In fact, the case that porous asphalt is quieter has already been accepted by my hon. Friend's Department, yet, because of the mythical "high cost" factor, its use has been authorised only for sections of the motorway that pass through highly populated areas. Thus, the use of porous asphalt has been agreed near the more densely populated Ashtead in Mole Valley, and a short stretch alongside Merstham in my own constituency. Unless a change is announced by my hon. Friend tonight, those living within audible reach of the remaining sections will continue to suffer from the brushed concrete surface.
Yet all that section will shortly be expanded from three lanes in each direction to four. That will be with the blessing of Surrey county council, and indeed with my blessing, too. What a marvellous opportunity the widening presents to scrap the concrete surface altogether and replace it with quieter—and cheaper—porous asphalt.
The Highways Agency recently announced its proposal to widen the M25 between Sevenoaks—junction 5—and junction 7, with the M23. I understand that no concrete at all is to be used on that section. The Department has also decided to replace concrete with porous asphalt on a 12 km section of the M23 south of its interchange with the M25. I welcome that decision, but ask how it can be squared with a decision not to lay porous asphalt over the sections of the M25 with which I am concerned.
The total number of houses within the 300 m band over that 12 km section of the M23 is 271, which works out at a density of 23 houses per km. Let us compare that with the sections of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10, which under present plans are not to have porous asphalt. We find that the density of houses per kilometre is identical—23. Thus, the rationale for providing porous asphalt is the same for the M25 as it is for that section of the M23.
Even more telling is the fact that, when that density of houses along the section of the M23 which is to be given a porous asphalt surface is compared with the density of homes which are not benefiting, so far, from porous asphalt between junctions 7 and 8, we find that the density of homes in the 300 m band is 80 properties per kilometre as compared with 23. Thus, the case for giving the noise benefit deriving from porous asphalt to that stretch is overwhelming.
I can understand my hon. Friend setting his face against the logic of the case if there was no immediate question of rebuilding the highway, but that is not the case. The motorway must be reconstructed anyway to provide four lanes. So, in the interests of all those residents, not to mention the thousands who live just beyond the 300 m band, I urge my hon. Friend to seize this opportunity and to make a major contribution towards easing the level of noise pollution emanating from that section of the M25.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) on securing this debate, and also thank him for enabling me to make a brief speech.
He has chosen to focus on the widening proposal for a section of the M25 between junctions 7 and 10. A small part of that stretch falls in my constituency. have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister over the concerns raised by the White Hill residents association and others, who have already argued for the use of porous asphalt to protect their homes from the increased noise which will occur as a result of the widening scheme.
A much greater number of my constituents are concerned with the Highways Agency's proposals for the stretch between junctions 5 and 6. My hon. Friend will know that a number of local representatives are seeking a meeting with him to discuss their concerns. For these residents, and for those, of course, who live between junctions 7 and 10, there are many anxieties—air pollution, light pollution, the safety implications of narrower lanes, surface water contamination, and the effect on side roads of newly generated traffic. But by far the greatest concern is the prospect of even higher levels of noise intrusion.
When the M25 was first proposed, the Department of Transport said that, if the bunds and noise barriers were not good enough, they would be expanded and extended. Although traffic flows and noise are much higher than originally envisaged, with a daily traffic flow of 110,000 vehicles against a design capacity of 79,000, nothing has been done.
To make matters worse, although local people are already suffering from a level of noise which many find unacceptable, they can expect a further 50 per cent. increase in traffic, with seriously inadequate noise protection.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate: the widening of the motorway presents an excellent opportunity for noise levels to be restored to those which were expected when the road was built. Higher bunds and noise barriers, together with porous asphalt, would achieve that, and, in the process, they would restore the faith of my constituents in the Department.
I pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, and to his officials, who worked so closely with local people when dealing with the widening of the M23. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate has said, it has been found possible to introduce porous asphalt throughout the length of the stretch of that motorway which is being widened.
The M25, of course, is a far busier, much noisier motorway. It affects a far larger number of homes, yet there are no plans at all to lay porous asphalt at present, as I understand it, on any of the stretch of the motorway which runs through my constituency. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that and to consider the great concern and hostility among my constituents.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) on initiating the debate tonight. I am grateful that he has given me the opportunity to explain some of the finer points of porous asphalt and just how much my officials in the Department of Transport

and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I mind about the quality of life of people who have to live near roads. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) for his kind remarks about the care with which my officials have worked with local people on the widening of the M23. I hope that, after my words tonight, he will feel a little more reassured about the M25. We shall see.
I fully understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who has spoken so powerfully on behalf of his constituents who are affected by noise from the M25. I recognise fully how distressing traffic noise can be, especially when a new road is built through an otherwise quiet area—the area which my hon. Friend represented when he was first elected to the House. Noise can be an abomination. I live in the depths of the Wiltshire countryside and, ironically, the noise from the trunk road that passes my bedroom window is considerably greater than the noise in central London. That is not a common perception.
We must, however, face up to the facts. The M25 is the busiest road in the country. It is essential for both the national and the local economy. It connects all the major radial routes to London, the southern ports, the airports and the channel tunnel. Congestion on parts of the motorway is encouraging traffic back into towns and villages around the motorway, bringing pollution and noise and making the roads more dangerous.
If nothing is done to improve the capacity of the motorway to take the increased traffic, those towns and villages will suffer even more from traffic trying to avoid motorway congestion. That would cause a return to the conditions which the motorway was built to relieve. Of course I understand that my hon. Friend's constituents do not see it that way, but when I travel the country I realise that, from a national perspective, the M25 is seen as the London bypass. It is therefore important for the economic well-being of the country that we ensure that the bypass is up to standard and able to support the wealth-creating sectors of our economy. Roads and villages that are quiet now will increasingly become rat runs—which can only be bad for residents, pedestrians, local motorists, businesses, and of course the environment and everyone's health and safety. It is to help to stop that happening that we propose improvements.
The section of the motorway between junctions 7 and 8 which runs through my hon. Friend's constituency is currently dual three lanes. It was designed to carry up to 79,000 vehicles per day. Peak-time flows are currently about 110,000 vehicles per day. The case for widening this very busy stretch speaks for itself.
The widening which started in March this year is to dual four lanes and is within the existing highway boundaries. Hard shoulders will be provided over most of the length. The cost of the works is about £45 million. The opportunity is also being taken to replace the existing yellow lighting through junction 7 with the glare-reducing lanterns which keep light spillage within the highway boundary. That type of lighting will also be used for the remainder of the stretch, for lighting is also a serious pollutant, particularly to those who live in the countryside. Fortunately, technology is helping us, and we shall take full advantage of it, by using a more friendly kind of light and a better-designed light fixture, which will allow those


who prefer the darkness of the countryside to have a better chance of enjoying the peace and quiet of the countryside in the darkness if they so wish.
Where possible, the existing landscape is to be retained and improved. Large areas of additional planting are proposed. Planting will be with indigenous species and designed to blend the scheme visually, and ecologically, into its surroundings. As both my hon. Friends have vividly described, the main concerns of the residents following the public consultation centred on the existing noise from the motorway and the likelihood of it increasing with the addition of more traffic lanes. Extensive additional acoustic fences were included in the widening proposals, and the residents and the local councils considered that further measures were required, especially in the Merstham area. The proposed level of mitigation was reviewed and enhanced noise mitigation measures were announced in the decision letter issued in July last year. The enhancements include more than 2 kilometres of additional acoustic fences and raising the height of some of the existing ones.
Once upon a time, I was but an innocent motorist. I thought that a road was a road, and that the road surface was the road surface; now I know differently—it is the pavement. I now know that road surfaces matter a great deal. I shall address some of the technical arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate.
I must point out that the costs quoted in the parliamentary answer which he mentioned—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Key: The costs quoted in the parliamentary answer to which my hon. Friend referred were right, but the costs for the concrete section related to total reconstruction of the road. The costs for porous asphalt were for resurfacing only. I have had to learn the hard way—by pounding the motorways of this country—about these things. I now understand that the cost per mile of laying different substances for the pavement varies enormously and, therefore, I am not at all surprised at the variations which my hon. Friend quoted.
There are many engineering and accountancy elephant traps in these matters because the cost of laying certain materials is not the same as the cost of the entire reconstruction work. Furthermore, the life of different surfaces varies. The life of porous asphalt is comparatively short—it may be as short as five to seven years—whereas a concrete surface can last more than 20 years. Those are some of the sums which I invite my hon. Friend to consider, perhaps in his bath tomorrow when he will undoubtedly have the benefit of Hansard to refresh his memory.
It is also important to recognise that my Department cannot simply lay new asphalt if there is still life in the existing concrete pavement. Often, it is true that the existing concrete pavement has been agreed as a noisy road surface, for which substantial payments have been made to those nearby in compensation already, and a double payment would not please the Public Accounts Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East said that some of his constituents wish to come and discuss these matters with me. I will be delighted to see him, with

representatives of his constituents, at the earliest convenient moment, and perhaps we can discuss that tomorrow.
The scheme includes the reconstruction of the carriageway around junction 7, which is nearing the end of its life, and provides for the reconstruction of the existing asphalt surface in conventional hot-rolled asphalt. Following requests from residents and local authorities for the use of a quieter road surface, porous asphalt surfacing is being used on a trial basis in the densely populated Merstham area.
Commercial vehicle flows on that section are high. Porous asphalt surfacing has not been used extensively on heavily used roads in this country and evidence of its durability is limited. In addition, it is more expensive than other surfacing materials and has a shorter life, so all the noise and dust of resurfacing would come round sooner.
My officials leave no stone unturned in the search for improved technology of pavements. Recently, I visited Italy to discuss these matters with my opposite number in the new Italian Government, and to visit Autostrada headquarters in Florence—a great hardship it was, too, as the House will imagine. We also pounded the Italian motorways looking at road surfaces and how they do it. Undoubtedly, we will have learnt from them, and they from us.
The section that is to be surfaced with porous asphalt will extend from Gatton Bottom in the west, through the Merstham built-up area to Pendell wood, east of junction 7. Pendell wood was chosen as the eastern termination point because the recent carriageway reconstruction ended there.
We considered carefully the requests from the While Hill residents association to extend the use of porous asphalt by a further 300 m eastward from Pendell wood to the White Hill bridge. We could not justify that as an additional expense when weighed against the likely costs of compensation and noise insulation measures which we may incur.
Following the publication of the environmental statement for the widening scheme between junctions 8 and 10 earlier this year, Reigate and Banstead borough council drew attention to discrepancies in the predicted noise levels at the point where the two schemes abut at Mogador, just west of junction 8. The consultants involved have investigated the apparent discrepancies and it has been established that the predicted noise levels at Mogador, which were quoted in the junctions 7 to 8 statement, were too low.
In recognition of the predicted higher noise levels in the Mogador area, higher noise fences will now be incorporated into the current junctions 7 to 8 widening works to reduce noise further in the area. Residents affected in the Mogador area were informed of those changes last week.
As a precaution, noise levels were reassessed for the whole scheme, which has resulted in a slight upward movement in some of the figures. Because of the extensive mitigation measures already included in the scheme, including bunds and noise fences, with one exception—Dell house at Merstham—that does not trigger the offer of further insulation, over and above that already proposed.
In calculating the noise levels at Merstham, no account has been taken of the porous asphalt surfacing because it is being used on a trial basis only. That surface treatment will, however, reduce the existing and future noise levels


by about 4 decibels, which is a substantial improvement; that is in addition to the benefits obtained from the bunds and fences.
Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, there have been some complaints about construction noise from the widening works near the main residential areas of Merstham. The contractor has now been told not to operate large plant at night. Strict noise limits are set on the works contractor's operations and agreed with the environmental health officer. Wherever possible, work is carried out behind existing noise fences and earth bunds. Lower speed limits through contraflow systems on the motorway during construction should also lead to a small reduction in traffic noise.
Proposals for widening the section between junctions 8 to 10, to dual four lanes within the existing highway boundary, were published in February. I am pleased to take the opportunity of this debate to announce the results of that public consultation. More than 200 people submitted written comments to the Department and all the opinions expressed were considered carefully. Many issues were raised but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, noise was the issue that caused most concern. We have decided to proceed with the widening of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10 generally, as described in the environmental statement. I am pleased to say that we have been able to increase the height of some of the barriers and provide extra barriers in certain areas.
I fully understand the concerns about traffic noise expressed by many of those who live close to that section of the M25. The published proposals accordingly included extensive noise fencing to reduce the noise impact of the scheme and the provision of porous asphalt through the Leatherhead area, where there would be benefits for a considerable number of people.
In addition to noise barriers, the effects of the widening works will be moderated by retaining as much as possible of the existing motorway landscape planting and earthbunding, and by new planting. To complement that planting, the scope for tree and shrub planting on land in private ownership outside the motorway boundary will also be considered. Many of the existing noise barriers will be replaced.
During the construction period, every effort will be made to minimise disruption and disturbance to local people and the local environment. The construction contract will include limits on noise levels and access routes. The length of time between the removal of existing noise fencing and the erection of replacement fencing will be kept to a minimum. Temporary fencing will be erected at the start of works, to protect the existing planting.
As has already been made clear to the House, the greatest concern expressed during public consultation was about the levels of traffic noise currently experienced by people living close to the motorway and the potential increase in noise from a widened motorway. Many people considered that the proposed provision of a porous asphalt carriageway in the Leatherhead and Ashtead gap should be extended elsewhere along that section of the motorway. I considered carefully all the representations made, but the existing surface is in good condition and, other than in the Leatherhead section, that part of the motorway passes through scattered and sparsely populated areas, with the notable exceptions of some small communities, including Downside and Walton-on-the-Hill. The proposed noise

fences will help in those areas, but I am afraid that extending the provision of porous asphalt cannot be justified at this time.
However, when the carriageway is in need of major maintenance, the use of porous asphalt or other noise reducing surfaces will be considered. Porous asphalt is a well-known low-noise surfacing, but there are others. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred to the noise of ridged concrete on our motorways. We are all familiar with that when driving a car and changing from surface to surface. It can be very noisy for the driver of the car, and it can be even worse for a person who has to sit near it all day and who sometimes has to endure it in the wet, which can be even noisier.
I had to learn about the different tones which emanate from the different kinds of surfaces. I am delighted to report that technology is again on our side, and it marches on. There is a new substance called "whisper concrete" which we are trialling on the M18 in Humberside. I visited the trial site, pounded up and down the M18, stood beside it, listened and looked at it from all angles. I listened to the advice of experts, and it is true—it is a very quiet surface. It has been used extensively elsewhere in Europe.
We hope very much that we will be able to use it more widely here. We have a second trial on the A564 in the east midlands under construction at present. Initial sings from the first trial are encouraging and we are carefully monitoring how it performs on noise, skidding and durability. The skidding point is very important. We can build an almost silent surface for a road, but if one then puts a car on it, it will skid all over the place, which is very dangerous. We have to get the balance right. We hope to take decisions on the wider use of "whisper concrete" very shortly.
It will be of enormous benefit if technology has triumphed, because that surface will have a much longer life than porous asphalt. If we get it right, the surface noise generated will be about as quiet as porous asphalt 2. Details of the additional mitigation measures are given in the decision letter, which will be published tomorrow. We will now invite tenders for the design and construction of the widening works which are expected to start next spring.
On the proposals for widening westwards between junctions 12 and 15, I would like to assure the House that I am fully aware of the strength of feeling about our proposals for adding three-lane link roads to each side of the motorway between those junctions. That is the busiest stretch of road in the country and additional capacity for this section is needed if the motorway is to continue to function effectively.
Many have said that they would experience considerable difficulty in preparing for the public inquiry before the end of the year, as is currently anticipated. I fully appreciate their concerns. It is a very complex scheme and these are important issues. Therefore, in the light of those representations, I have decided that the public inquiry will not now start this year. An announcement on an actual start date will be made as soon as practicably possible.
I have also received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) on behalf of his constituents who are seeking an extension to the objection period for the draft compulsory purchase order which ends tomorrow. Since the public inquiry will not now start this year, I will of course be prepared to


receive objections after tomorrow. I look forward to discussing those matters—no doubt at great length—with my hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.